From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:28:02 GMT

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:
>>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?

Right!  You're going after the wrong guy, there.  Conservatives and
liberals don't like people decide what they want to do with their own
bodies.  Liberals tend to be anti-gun.  But you're going after a
libertarian there - if you want to shoot yourself full of drugs,
that's your decision.


>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).

Add a waiting period, and they'll walk into gun shops 15 days before
said events and walk out with them later.  If they really wanted guns,
there are large, easily accessible black markets.  This also shows
massive ignorance of the facts, as Hinckley did NOT buy his gun just
moments before hitting Reagan and Brady.  The Brady Bill wouldn't have
affected him at all.  You're making up facts as you go along.


>>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.  Those people aren't limited by a lack of guns, if there was
actually a lack of guns, nor is it a heat of passion thing.  Her best
defense against the SOB is getting a gun.  If she wants to stay legal,
she is defenseless for two weeks.


>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.  I'll admit that these methods are not what they
>should be, but (being the bleeding heart that I am) I think there should
>be more emphasis on it.

Sorry, they don't help.  They're too overworked as it is.  Can you
imagine calling the NYPD and telling them that your ex-husband has
threatened to kill you?  They'll be grateful for the tip when you show
up dead, but they can't protect you.  You can move somewhere else if
you can handle the disruption, but can you keep it up for years, and
is he never going to find out where you live?

We might be able to get more police if we weren't throwing all the
money away on wasteful government programs, but that's the way it is.


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

As opposed to your line of "Let her be nearly defenseless.  It should
be pretty funny."


>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?).

You talk as if there was a definite end to this thing, a time past
which he's guaranteed to give up.


>>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.

Oh, real good.  If you _really_ wanted a gun, all you had to do was
become a criminal and go looting.  That you would advocate this just
underscores the stupidity of the law.


> 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.

Certainly it did.  All you had to do was watch the looters pull up to
a store, the defenders firing their weapons into the air, and the
looters taking off again looking for easier prey.  They weren't
looking for a fair fight, they were looking for victims of your gun
control laws.


>>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!"

This is so fucking stupid it's incredible.  Why not just summarize the
anti-2nd ammendment group as "Wah, please Mr. Big Government Daddy,
wipe my ass, shake my dick, and protect me from myself!" ?


>>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.

Criminals and assassins tend to be very intrusive in other peoples
lives, regardless of what weapon they're using, be it a gun or a bomb
(illegalization has really stopped that, eh?).  It's nice to have
confirmation that you care nothing about the constituion, however, my
owning a handgun is absolutely my own personal right to privacy.

Making someone wait 15 days for an abortion violates their privacy in
exactly _what_ way that isn't like making someone wait 15 days for a gun?
It's even worse in that the 15 days for the handgun is
(disingenuously) passed off as necessary for the express purpose of
violating someone's privacy by checking out their background.  Not
that the background check is bad, but if you want to try to finesse a
"right to privacy" comparison, you're going to have to show how making
someone wait for an abortion is more of an invasion of privacy than
making them wait to buy something.

And if you knew anything about the Brady case you'd know that the
Brady Bill wouldn't have helped him.

-- 
You ordered the Jackson Pollock paint-by numbers kit?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc