From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:02:34 GMT

In article <9301091947.12@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <C0FzJq.D1B@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Amar Caves) writes:
>>In article <9301051952.18@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writs:
>>>>No, that's injustice, ethically bankrupt, and a direct and immediate
>>>>violation of her Constitutionally protected civil liberties.
>>>
>>>The government doesn't tell her how to pick her friends.
>>
>>What is your point here?  That she should have the right friends in
>>order to protect yourself?
>
>No, that there is a game that you have to play to get a gun permit from
>the state government.  She needs to try a different tactic.

       Oh, it's a game now, is it?

>>>>>>Probably so; but since having a gun isn't a crime, it's frankly none
>>>>>>of their damn business.
>>>
>>>Unless they are criminals or are on parole.
>>
>>What's your point?  The police, by nature, will have records on
>>criminals.  They should *not* be keeping records on law abiding
>>citizenry!
>
>In the state of Massachusetts, everyone who has a drivers license
>has a record on the police computers.

       Can you truly not differentiate between "is" and "ought?"

       The police *do* maintain these records.  They *shouldn't*.

>>>>proven.  Any other approach is termed "prior restraint," and is
>>>>unconsitutional.
>>>
>>>So therefore, prosecuting criminals is unlawful, since it takes away
>>>their rights.
>>
>>No, it's part of "due process".  What the hell is your point?
>
>That you believe that a person should be able to buy a gun without
>question, because anyone who would buy a gun from a licensed dealer
>is obviously not a criminal, regardless of the laws in effect.

      I've seen you shift topics without blinking, but I'll be damned
if I can figure out just how this one happened.

       Due Process means that for my rights to be taken by the state,
it must prove that *I* personally, not some group or something, am in
violation of the law.

>>>>Because most newspapers subscribe to the philosophy of advocacy journalism:
>>>>pick a side in a issue an be a cheerleader.  Since most news organizations
>>>>suffer from paternalistic statism, they are anti-civil liberties.
>>>
>>>The local paper here reports arrests, which are a matter of public record.
>>
>>Not all do, and a seizure doesn't have to have an associated arrest.
>
>In Massachusetts it does.

       It's kind of sad just how completely wrong you are.

       The most often used seizure laws are *federal*, not state, because
most state laws are much harder to make stick.  You legilsature may not have
passed a law, but your police probably don't care.  They're playing ball
in the fed's court, because the feds have neater toys.

>>>In MAssachusetts, you are more likely to have someone break into your home,
>>>than have someone threaten to shoot you on the street.
>>>
>>>Perhaps I've been lucky, but I haven't been through experiences that would
>>>make me want to carry a gun at all times, except when I lived in Boston.
>>
>>So, exactly what is your point?  That just because you have a warm and
>>fuzzy feeling walking the streets, we all should?  Listen, as long as
>>you are going to insist on not stating your points, we're not going to
>>have an effective dialog.
>
>Do you carry a gun every day?

       What difference, exactly does this make?

>How often do you have to pull it out and demonstrate that you are armed?
>
>How often do you have to fire that gun due to the fact that your life is
>in danger?

       I, personally, have never had to shoot at anybody, nor have I ever
had to actually draw a gun.  A friend has had to *draw* his gun twice, but
has also never had to shoot at anybody.  Drawing the gun in both cases
was sufficient to make the individual in question leave.
       But I will repeat what many people here have said, and apparently
*needs* to be repeated:

       One does not measure the value of an insurance policy on the
number of times a single individual has needed to make a claim on
it.

       I have all kinds of insurance on my car, but I've never needed
to make a claim on it.  That doesn't mean, though, that I can do without
it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns