From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:06:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.151802.29376@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>Using this logic, why don't you just go out and kill them today?  Why
>>trust the less certain method of hoping they have a tragedy and so
>>that you can refuse them life?  Why wait until they do more damage to
>>your values and dreams?
>
>I don't follow /your/ logic.  I'm not actively seeking out to cause
>someone harm, that would be against my own values.  I just don't give
>aid and comfort to anyone who says they "need" it.  I decide who I
>want to help or not based on my value system.
>
i generally dislike "me too" posts, but after the "disgust" comment
earlier, i feel obliged to agree with larry publically here.

>>>>I am personally disgusted that someone could have the potential to be
>>>>so selfish to not share something of which they have no need.

its not selfishness.  its the realization that my property (i.e., organs)
could be used to further causes which i oppose.

>>> I am not an altruist.  Why is it so hard to comprehend that some people
>>> feel strongly about their values and dreams ?
 
hey, i'm an altruist.  i'll help people i don't even know (i.e., organ
donation) assuming that they're libertarians like me.

>>> Sure it should.  Some people have a religous objection to it, perhaps
>>> their God doesn't approve of mutilation.  Some people, mostly women,
>>> don't want to donate those organs which would result in disfiguration.
>>
>>Disfiguration?  After death?
>
>That's what my wife has stated; other women I know have said similar things.

interestingly enough, i have a colleague who has researched factors
related to the decision to donate organs (dr. john j. skowronski,
the ohio state university at newark).  i will contact him about the
disfiguration claim.

>>Let me apologize for flying off the handle, but the value that I feel
>>most strongly about is that everyone deserves a chance at life, no
>>matter what kind of scoundrel they are.  Perhaps I am too idealistic.
>
>Apology accepted.  

apology accpeted here as well, although i strongly disagree with your
"chance at life" philosophy.  my view is this: gun controllers are
people who know that their gun laws will never work.  but they persist
because they don't want us "little people" owning the means of overthrowing
the power-elite (i.e., the gun controllers).  the personal defense issue
is not relevant to sarah brady, because she can either: (a) rig the
system so as to retain her own weapons, and/or (b) use her wealth and
influence to purchase private security forces to assure her safety.
in essence, she is knowingly putting me and other citizen's safety
at risk by working towards my complete disarmament (which is, by the
way, HCI's stated goal).  thus, you have someone who, in my opinion,
is (in)directly contributing to murder.  my organs will not help
such a person.

>>It was just so shocking to me that you all were talking about refusing
>>life to other people in such a cavalier manner!
>
>I am serious.  I will not voluntarily help scum live.

i am serious as well.  i will not voluntarily help scum live.  and
i don't consider my actions cavalier at all, but rather completely
reasoned and reasonable.

drew 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns