From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:40:07 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <14natnINNjgt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> 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:
>>In article <1992Jul23.174742.4455@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes 
( Steve Novak) writes:
>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?
>
>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).

This is a lie.  Hinckley BOUGHT THE GUN HE USED TO SHOOT REAGAN
SIX (6) MONTHS BEFORE HE MADE THE ATTEMPT ON THE PRESIDENT'S LIFE.
MOREOVER, HE *ALREADY* HAD A GUN WHEN HE BOUGHT THAT .22.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE "WAITING PERIODS SAVE LIVES" ARGUMENT.

>>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.

Ha ha!  The perpetrator is usually ALREADY well armed with knives, firearms,
maritial arts/military training, and/or brute physical strength.

It's the VICTIM who needs to become quickly armed.

>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.

That's bullshit.  The police have no legal duty to protect individual
citizens.  Ask the Supreme Court.

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

If someone wants to kill me, I'll shed no tears if I had to shoot them
in self-defense.  I'd sleep soundly that night.  Very soundly.  Honest
men should not be afraid to walk down their own street at night.

>And most of them smack of that American crybaby ethic, "Wah, but I want
>it NOW!"

That "crybaby ethic" is GROUNDED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 
CONSTITUTION--IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS!

>>>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
>>>wrong and is doing no wrong.  Who knows better than she if she wants an
>>>abortion?  Or gall bladder surgery?  Or a cap on her tooth?
>>
>>This makes as much sense a waiting period on guns.
>>
>>>Maybe you could clarify this left-field comparison of yours.
>>
>>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"), 

Note that the SC carved this right out in 1972.  Before 1965 (Griswold vs.
Connecticut), there was no doctrine of a right to privacy.  Not that
I don't support such a right.  I do.

>whereas  guns tend to be very intrusive in other peoples
>lives.  Just ask the Brady the bill is named after.

You're raving.  To put it in your terms, "Gun control restricts a 
right that is based on a personal right to keep and bear arms
PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION."  It doesn't
matter what people think of guns--the SECOND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR.
BRADY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN HELPED BY A WAITING PERIOD.  HINCKLEY
BOUGHT THE GUN BRADY WAS SHOT WITH 6 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE SHOOTING.

  "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
   be properly armed."  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:1040 talk.politics.guns:18264