From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:01:44 GMT

In article <9301061637.45@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <PA146008.601.726336489@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>In article <9301051207.02@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>In article <C0Cox6.Ivt@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>>>>Being poor doesn't mean you have no right to defend yourself.
>>>>And charity isn't just money, food, or clothing.
>>>>
>>>>|> >Disarming most people is, at best, complete waste of time.  How many
>>>>|> >people who we don't want carrying obey this law?  None?  Then why are
>>>>|> >we threatening other people with jail?
>>>>|> 
>>>>|> The police would like to know who has guns.
>>>>
>>>>In a police state, this is a valid argument.  In our Republic, it should be
>>>>repugnant to anyone who understands that:
>>>>
>>>>1.  Persons have a guaranteed right of privacy; and
>>>>
>>>>2.  The government exists at the whim of the governed.
>>>
>>>When you have state governments that seem to release convicted murderers
>>>and armed robbers on a whim, then you have to have some means of keeping
>>>them from buying weapons.
>>
>>       "Have to," is an interesting way to phrase things.  First, if the 
>>state governments *are* releasing murderers and robbers on a whim, with no 
>>thought as to whether they're a danger (or even completed their sentence, 
>>which most don't) explain to me why *I* should be put at an inconvenience 
>>and danger for it?
>
>So you're advocating that all people with the money in hand should be 
>able to buy guns?

       I am advocating that unless the government has some reason *on hand*
that I shouldn't be owning a gun, my private transaction with a private 
dealer is none of their business.  If the dealer (or private citizen) wants 
to sell to me, and I want to buy, that's my business, just like I was buying 
a car, a chainsaw, or anything else.
       I am advocating that people be treated like honest citizens unless 
the government has proof otherwise.  If you disagree with this, perhaps you 
should be arguing that the government should simply unilaterally place us 
all on probation, since we apparently can't be trusted.

>>       Besides, you were talking, as well, about checking peoplfor a 
>>subjective psychological readiness for a gun.  Instant checks have been 
>>instituted to check someone for a criminal record.  What happens it what 
>>always happens when you try to control a commodity that people who don't 
>>obey they law want.  They find a way around it.
>
>That's right.  I'm a criminal.  I steal your wallet and use your SS number
>and other pertinent information to make myself an identity that will
>allow me to pass the spot check.  The spot check is now worthless.

        That's right.  (Hell, I don't even need your wallet and SS number to 
make a convincing ID that'll pass muster.  Since we keep records on what you 
do, not what you don't do, a "not found" is sufficient.  A completely fake 
ID would probably work.)
        The problem with your psych-profile is that same problem if you had 
to go through a "journalism board" in order to print your newspaper.  You're 
treated like a criminal as a matter of course, and someone can unilaterally 
take your rights away and place the burdon on you to get them back.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns