From: Kevin Langston <langston@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: gun(s) for carry in a car
Followup-To: tx.politics
Originator: langston@eugene.convex.com
Reply-To: langston@convex.COM (Kevin Langston)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Technical Operations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:41:44 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.) writes:
>Look, I do not want to get into the debate about gun control, 
>because I have better things to do with my time.  I will just leave
>it clear that I disagree with you about the so-called "right".

    Would you care to explain why "the people" of the 2nd Amendment are 
    any different from "the people" in the other pieces of the BoR?

    The Supreme Court says "the people" in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th and 10th
    Amendments all refer to the same set of individuals, the citizens of
    the United States. 

>My point is that the police are selectively enforcing existing
>laws according to their own biases, which are often racist, 
>misogynist, and political.

    The police are doing a tough job, one that I certainly don't want.
    They're only human, and are therefore prone to the same "failure
    modes" as the rest of us. Luckily, given the extreme situations
    much police work involves, this level of abuse relatively rarely
    rears its ugly head. Unfortunately most incidents receive a rather
    disproportionate share of media attention, especially when there is a
    racial disparity involved. While some undoubtedly are, to presume that
    all police are racist misogynists is hardly fair, maybe even bigoted.

>Sympathy is hardly reassuring, given that several friends in Houston
>have been assaulted by police officers for political reasons.  One 
>friend was an unarmed, nineteen year old woman who weighs less than
>100 pounds, standing alone, assaulted by a rather large, uniformed,
>helmeted, armed and club-wielding member of Houston's finest.
>Police routinely abuse their rights and need to be reigned in from
>such abuses.  Selective enforcement is one such abuse.

    So doesn't it seem rather odd to leave the police as the only
    non-military entity carrying guns?

    What would you think are the long term consequences of this
    imbalance of force? Would it make "the people" feel more, or less
    comfortable around the police? Would it instil a greater sense of
    personal security in you, or in the people who may fit some visual
    profile of some non-PC group?

>I would rather move to Canada with much more strict gun control,
>and ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less murder (by guns or other means).

    But Canada's much lower (not orders of magnitude, by any means)
    crime rate pre-dates their spurt of gun control in the late '70's.
    How did gun control work retroactively??? I saw a study last year
    that showed Canada's crime rate is gradually catching up to ours, 
    in spite of their socio-economic/gun-control "advantages".

>But, I will not get into the pointless debate about gun control.

    But Jay, gun control isn't really about guns. It's about CONTROL.
    It's about keeping the people dependent on the government. You
    have the choice to not own a gun. I fully support your right to
    take advantage of that choice. I also believe my right to choose
    to own a gun is partially responsible for your ability to survive
    without one...

-- 
--  Kevin Langston  --  langston@convex.com  --  langston@frontier.lonestar.org
--  Voting for Clinton, the "Candidate of Change", is like trading in a 
--  4-year-old Accord for a Yugo. It may be new and different, but four 
--  years is a long, long time to be stuck with a lemon.