From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 23:18:36 GMT

In article <9301101310.47@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>In article <16B522ACC.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Val) writes:
>>In article <9301091947.12@rmkhome.UUCP>
>>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>In article <C0FzJq.D1B@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu Amar Caves) writes:
>>>>In article <9301051952.18@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) wrts:
>>>>What is your point here?  That she should have the right friends in
>>>>order to protect yourself?
>>>
>>>No, that there is a game that you have to play to get a gun permit from
>>>the state government.  She needs to try a different tactic.
>>
>>       Oh, it's a game now, is it?
>
>That's one way of looking at it.  Do you try something once, and if things
>don't work out to your satisfaction, do you then walk away and never try
>again?

       No, but neither do I treat people's lives as a game.

       I'm curious.  Do you *accept* as *OK* this "game?"

>>>>What's your point?  The police, by nature, will have records on
>>>>criminals.  They should *not* be keeping records on law abiding
>>>>citizenry!
>>>
>>>In the state of Massachusetts, everyone who has a drivers license
>>>has a record on the police computers.
>>
>>       Can you truly not differentiate between "is" and "ought?"
>>
>>       The police *do* maintain these records.  They *shouldn't*.
>
>If records weren't kept on drivers or car registrations, how would you
>deal with a hit and run driver?

        Let me go through this one more time:

        Any benefit of registration on cars along law enforcement lines
is very, very tiny compared to it's true purpose, which is revenue enhancement.

        However, even if you can make some argument to this effect, *MY*
state government only registers cars used on public roads.  You continue
to talk about all guns, not just those people intend to carry open
or concealed.

>>>>No, it's part of "due process".  What the hell is your point?
>>>
>>>That you believe that a person should be able to buy a gun without
>>>question, because anyone who would buy a gun from a licensed dealer
>>>is obviously not a criminal, regardless of the laws in effect.
>>
>>      I've seen you shift topics without blinking, but I'll be damned
>>if I can figure out just how this one happened.
>
>>       Due Process means that for my rights to be taken by the state,
>>it must prove that *I* personally, not some group or something, am in
>>violation of the law.
>
>Right.  And checking somebody's record when they buy a gun doesn't take
>their rights away, unless their record warrants it.

       I can't decide whether you are intentionally dense or what.

       Let's try a different tactic.

       If the government wants to check me out when I buy a guy, that's
*fine*.  No problem.  But *THE BURDON OF PROOF IS ON THEM*.  I should not
be required to wait around on their whim to exercise my right.  Nor should
the gun shop owner be required to do the government's job for it.

>>>How often do you have to pull it out and demonstrate that you are armed?
>>>
>>>How often do you have to fire that gun due to the fact that your life is
>>>in danger?
>>
>>       I, personally, have never had to shoot at anybody, nor have I ever
>>had to actually draw a gun.  A friend has had to *draw* his gun twice, but
>>has also never had to shoot at anybody.  Drawing the gun in both cases
>>was sufficient to make the individual in question leave.
>>       But I will repeat what many people here have said, and apparently
>>*needs* to be repeated:
>>
>>       One does not measure the value of an insurance policy on the
>>number of times a single individual has needed to make a claim on
>>it.
>>
>>       I have all kinds of insurance on my car, but I've never needed
>>to make a claim on it.  That doesn't mean, though, that I can do without
>>it.
>
>And I live in a state that mandates just what insurance you will have to
>have on your car.

        Let me be the first to say:

        HUH!?

        Where, exactly, did this segue come from?

        You did realize the insurance argument was an analogy, don't
you?  You just about made an argument for requiring people to carry
guns.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns