From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 07:04:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>> = (Mark A Zabel) writes:
>>>> = ? (You'll have to ask Phil):
>
>>>>>    Firearms. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit
>>>>>background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons
>
>>>It remains to be seen whether the limited restrictions mentioned in the
>>>platform above work.
>
>>Does this mean you have no problem with a mere 24-hour waiting period
>>before a woman could get an abortion?
>
>Apples and oranges being compared - and you know it full well, Ngai.
>
>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 
>

As a matter of fact then NCIC database can tell a person's complete
conviction record in a matter of seconds. All that has to be done
is query it. The 15 day waiting period is designed to make it
such a hassle that most folks will not buy.

>Anybody that is so in a hurry to get a gun that they can't wait seven 
>goddam days is the EXACT person you don't want buying a gun immediately.
>

I would bet that if an irrational neighbor threatened to blow away your
wife or kid and after having called the police and they responded with
a "we can't do anything without a witness or shots fired, call us again
if he causes further problems" you would be mightily pissed (rightly
so) if you had to put up with an inane 15 day waiting period to get a gun.
There are numerous scenarios such as this that can be easily imagined.

The waiting period law is passed by people with good intentions, to 
be sure. They honestly believe they are right. The trouble is
that it is naive to think that it is always the best policy. Sure
government is a compromise at best, but this is a topic that
runs people's emotions up. Those whose minds are made up on the 
topic are unlikely to be swayed unless they fall victim to 
an accidental or intentional shooting. These profound events
are what change people's minds. 

For an interesting read about one such person that experienced such
a profound experience get a hold of the September 1981 Esquire
article called "The case for guns". It was written by a former
anti gunner that suffered a serious mugging.

>Forcing a woman to wait a "mere" 24 hours to get an abortion makes zero
>sense.  It's just something you control freaks are into.  She has done na

What is the harm in making sure that there is no rash decision being made?
I know that I have done things in a knee jerk fashion that I wish I 
had waited a bit and cooled off before acting. What if a wife has a spat
with her husband and decides to abort in a fit of hysteria? The next
day she may feel very differently about it. Hell, there is a human
life at stake. I for one support a woman's right to choose, but think
that there need to be safeguards in place to know that it is a considered
decision. If I have to wait to buy a gun that CAN be used to take a human 
life, why shouldn't someone have to wit 24hrs to ASSUREDLY take a human life?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion