From: veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:23:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.222601.8031@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:

>> = (Phil Ngai) writes:
>>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>>Waiting periods for purchasing firearms can help spot those with criminal
>>>records or mental problems, people I hope you agree shouldn't have guns. 

>>Waiting periods for credit card purchases can help stop those with
>>bad credit.

>We're talking about guns that kill people, Ngai.  Let's not be condescending.

     No, we're talking about guns bought by law-abding citizens, which 
statistics show are far and away unlikely to kill anybody.

>>Motorists stopped by police should be held for 15 days so the police
>>can do a complete check on them. I am sure you agree that people with
>>criminal or mental problems shouldn't have cars, them being as
>>dangerous as they are. Drive by shootings would not be possible without
>>cars.

>However, *shootings* would still be possible, huh?
 
     Shootings are possible regardless of what happens.

>Gee, Phil, ANOTHER silly analogy.  Besides, people's records get checked when 
>they get a driver's license, and guess what they better have when the cops
>stop them?

     It happening does not make it right.

>>>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.

>>You mean like a woman who has received death threats?

>Someone that doesn't own a gun could easily have her defensive weapon
>turned AGAINST her, no?  ...Since you seem to mention a threatened woman as
>if she were the totally helpless type.

     Women, as a group, are likely to smaller and physically weaker than 
they're attackers.  A firearm helps to equalize that difference.
 
     As for weapons being turned on the victim, please show us some numbers.

>>>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 no

>>The use of the term "control freak" is amusing in this context.

>Why?  A gun could be used to kill someone.  

     And an abortion *will* kill someone.  (Familiar, no?)

>A waiting period for a woman
>desiring an abortion simply makes it hard for, say, a poor woman travelling
>from afar to even AFFORD an abortion.  I don't see the connection.
 
     Both are rights.  Waiting periods deny those rights.

>>By the way, don't ASSume I am anti-abortion.

>Since you ASSked so nicely, I withdraw the implication.

>>>Yet you wish to make those opinions everybody's, by force of law.

>>So do the gun banners.

>(Does this imply you ARE anti-abortion?)

>This is extreme.  I am NOT a gun banner; I really don't know that many, yet
>I know many in favor of waiting periods.  _I own a gun_.  


     _I_ don't.  What's your point?

>I get tired of
>being accused thusly when I simply see the need for ways to get guns out of
>the hands of every murderous thug in the country who wants one.  

     When you come up with a way which does not violate others rights, 
please come forward.  Rights are impractical things.  Honoring them allows 
others to abuse their rights.  We can't allow our rights, *any* of our 
rights, to be violated simply because it is more practical to do so.

>(Hint: I
>am in no way claiming that all gun owners are murderous thugs.)

     Then suggest some laws that affect *only* the murderous thugs.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|                                     Division of Continuing Education    |
| Statistics are any data which can be twisted to support your posititon  | 
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc