From: gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Special Interest Groups was (Re: Defined: National Police Force)
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:34:10 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1992Aug20.210159.28958@morrow.stanford.edu> silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>In article <16vdi5INN2mi@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>><	Would the zealots on both sides of the gun control 'discussion' 
>		  ^^^^^^^
>><please consider making use of the newsgroups created specifically to address 
>><this issue, namely talk.politics.guns and talk.politics.misc?
>>
>>Yes, after all, what on earth does "the right to keep and bear arms"
>>have to do with American culture? You'd think that guns have something
>>to do with American culture being different from British culture, for
>>example. Discussion of culture should be a genteel "tea party" type
>>debate.
>>
Dreadfully sorry old chap. Nasty business guns, shan't bring them up 
again, what! Sorry, couldn't resist :-)

>	The second ammendment has a great deal to do with American 
>culture and articles such as those posted by Mr. Fraser or Ms. Blais
>are a joy to read -- informative, thoughtful, hard-hitting.
>	In recent years unfortunately it also seems as though putting
>up with the lunatic fringe on every issue has become a central, standard
>part of American culture. Goddamn if I will. The NRA-survivalist-minded
>extremist and their PC-mushy-'liberal' opponents deserve censure.

Yow, switched from a mere brush to a real professional painter's roller!
I for one am disparaged in my family for having voted Democrat sometimes.
I support the work of the ACLU. Yet because I am also an NRA member I'm
suddenly some foaming-at-the-mouth right wing Ronald-Reagan-worshipping
Republican? Would you feel better if we all had little labels? What
would yours be? Do we get to write our own, or do you get to classify us?

>Both of them. It's the NRA types who'd like us to believe that a waiting 
>period before purchasing a hand-gun would lead to the Kristin Blais's
>of the country being unable to defend themselves from would-be rapists.

I would submit that no one has proved this wrong, they merely assert that
it is "obviously" wrong. I know a women who hates guns, but keeps a baseball
bat by her bed. She doesn't seem phased by the idea she might have to use
it to splatter some rapist's brains all over her nice paint.  I don't
advocate her buying a gun *because she doesn't want one*. Choice see?
Yet by your logic, as an NRA member, I should be trying to brainwash
her into buying a shotgun.

>It's their PC opponents who'd like us to believe that we ought not have
>guns, because, we wouldn't really need them if we spent more on proper
>police training -- rapists somehow wouldn't be on the force in their 
>perfect, PC world.

Ow! Pretty harsh don't you think? I would blame it more on a simple
foolish belief that government should be mommy and daddy and make
everything right. Of course, the fact that you'd have to make about
half the population police to achieve this does seem a bit daunting, no?
Why not just train them, and call them the "volunteer police militia?"

>	A pox on both your houses, lying bastards that you are.
>	
I resent you calling me a liar sir! Sadly, duels are now passe....
Some people firmly believe that trickle-down voodoo economics junk. 
Deregulate the S&L's and business will boom (at least for a while).
But such people are *rarely* lying bastards, just stupid. Never
attribute to malice that which can be more easily ascribed to stupidity,
ignorance, or fuzzy thinking.

>	And yes, I readily allow my arguments to devolve to the
>personal level. Life is personal. Culture is personal. Society is
>personal. The net and articles posted to the net should not 
>be falsely divorced from all passion and personal reality
>of the world from which they derive. Such a false divorcement only 
>serves those who's control of language is greatest, not those who's
>views have merit.

Methinks you mistake attacking stereotypes and strawmen for passionate
oratory.  Personal attacks usually beget mindless flame wars, not exchange
of information, views, or debate.

-- 
The War on Drugs is just part of the War on the US Constitution. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,alt.war,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton