From: archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:32:41 GMT

In article <14natnINNjgt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!) writes:


>In article <archer.157@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>>>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>>>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 
>>
>>No, they don't.  Anyone wanting a firearm for an illegal purpose is not 
>>going to purchase it through legal channels, nor sit our the waiting 
>>period.  Waiting periods are ONLY useful as a harassment tool for law-
>>abiding gun owners.

>Funny, then, isn't it that this the exact same reasoning that I use to
>justify the legalization of drugs, but conservatives alwaysd think I'm
>an idiot?  Anyone wanting to buy drugs will get them right?

Fortunately, you are talking to a libertarian, and I support the right of 
anyone who wants to take poision to turn thier brain to tapioca.  Just don't 
expect me to pay for his rehab or to support him once he screws himself up 
to the point that he can't work for a living.

>But you're right.  Anyone who really, really wants a gun can probably get
>it.  But what the waiting period attempts to do is stop people like
>David Chapman and John Hinckley, who walked into gun shops and minutes
>later came out with the guns they used to kill John Lennon and attempt
>to kill Ronald Reagan (oh, if only I could switch that around).

Look again.  In Hinkley's case, he owned the gun that he used for several 
weeks.  HE is the one who claims that the Brady Bill would have stopped 
him.  He did it in an effort to gain leniency.  Chapman bought the gun HE 
used illegally, and would NOT have been stopped by ANY law.

>>>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
>>>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.

>They should have spares.  If they're so damn competitive they should dedicate
>themselves to having a few guns.  I know people who hardly ever fire their
>guns who own 6 or 7.  This is a really stupid argument.

You asked for a reason why someone would "legitimately" need a gun NOW.  I 
gave you several perfectly good ones.

>In addition, there are (already) special blanket permits for dealers and
>their ilk, ie professional firearms experts.  The same thing could go for
>a "professional" shooter.  If the person is an amateur, then s/he is out
>of luck, and really should have prepared better, knowing in advance of the
>seven day waiting period.

I see.  So "tough noogies" is a reasonable response to someone who's rights 
are being denied.

>>So would the woman who started getting death threats from her abusive ex-
>>spouse.

>This is a problem that perhaps the waiting period is designed for.  By
>preventing the abusive spouse from running out and buying a gun and
>killing the other person in the heat of passion, that person now has
>to wait seven days.

Uh uh.  The waiting period was designed as a harassment too.

>OK, let's assume that the abusive spouse already has a weapon, or chooses
>to commit havoc by another means.  This is what police protection and
>injunctions are for.  

Injunctions do not work on people willing to break the law.  Doing physical 
harm is against the law.  If someone is willing to deliberately injure 
someone, they are also quite willing to break injunctions.

Police protection is not protection.  In a large number of cases, the courts 
have uniformly ruled that individuals have no right to protection by the 
police.  The police are there to protect society, not individuals, and have 
no oblication to do so.  Even if they were willing to try, they cannot be 
everywhere at once, and cannot spare the personnel to guard everyone who 
needs it 24 hours a day.

>  As opposed to the NRA line of "Let 'em fight it
>out."  

I am a member of the NRA, and we have no such line.  The NRA supports the 
right of the people to bear arms in self defense.

>I'm sure most people would rather be sequestered or relocated
>than suffer through the trauma of killing another human being, not to
>mention a trial and media attention (remember the Burning Bed?).

That is a decision that you are welcome to make for yourself.  I would 
perfer that, being innocent, I would walk the streets freely, and my 
persecutory should be "sequestered."  Because he was not convicted of a 
crime, he cannot be imprisioned.  For that reason, I want access to means of 
self-defense.

>>So was the entire city of Los Angeles while the police stood by and let 
>>chaos reign.

>What's your point?  People that wanted guns those days in LA had only to
>bust into the front of the store and take one.  Obviously the waiting
>period wouldn't have been a problem there.  People that already had guns
>were a threat, people that didn't were threatened.  But in no way did this
>affect anyone's prospects of shooting or getting shot at.

You are dead wrong here.  First, law abiding citizens had no business 
breaking in store windows.  Second, you lump all people who own guns in with 
the rioters.  Those law abiding citizens who wanted means of self-protection 
were denied it, while those who were willing to break the law had plenty of 
means to do so, in spite of California's much-vaunted waiting period.


>>There are plenty of reasons why one might need to purchase a gun today that 
>>have nothing to do with crime.

>And most of them smack of that American crybaby ethic, "Wah, but I want
>it NOW!"

So what?  Unless there is a compelling reason to deny you your rights NOW, 
why should they be denied?

>>>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
>>>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done no
>>>wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows better than she if she wants an
>>>abortion?  Or gall bladder surgery?  Or a cap on her tooth?
>>
>>This makes as much sense a waiting period on guns.
>>
>>>Maybe you could clarify this left-field comparison of yours.
>>
>>You might say the same for a waiting period on guns.

>I understanfd both sides take on the waiting period for abortion, and I'm
>ambivalent about it myself.  However, the two are not really related.  One
>restricts a right that is based on a personal right to privacy (as interpreted
>by the Supreme Court; don't give me that wash about "Where in the Constitution
>blah blah blah"), whereas  guns tend to be very intrusive in other peoples
>lives.  Just ask the Brady the bill is named after.

You neglect the second half of your structure.  This should read "one 
restricts a right based on a personal right to privacy, and the OTHER ONE IS 
BASED ON A SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED CIVIL LIBERTY IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS."

The intrusiveness of firearms is irrelivant to the subject of waiting 
periods, as is the waiting period.  Although I will comment that I find it 
amazing that some people get so upset about a waiting period for one right, 
abortion, and so religiously support a waiting period for another, the right 
to keep and bear arms.

-=-=-
T. Archer  PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu
University of Tennessee
"Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking." -- Unknown
-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections