From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:10:40 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <16B522ACC.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) 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) writs:
>>>>>No, that's injustice, ethically bankrupt, and a direct and immediate
>>>>>violation of her Constitutionally protected civil liberties.
>>>>
>>>>The government doesn't tell her how to pick her friends.
>>>
>>>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?

>>>>>>>Probably so; but since having a gun isn't a crime, it's frankly none
>>>>>>>of their damn business.
>>>>
>>>>Unless they are criminals or are on parole.
>>>
>>>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?

>>>>>proven.  Any other approach is termed "prior restraint," and is
>>>>>unconsitutional.
>>>>
>>>>So therefore, prosecuting criminals is unlawful, since it takes away
>>>>their rights.
>>>
>>>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.

>>>>>Because most newspapers subscribe to the philosophy of advocacy journalism:
>>>>>pick a side in a issue an be a cheerleader.  Since most news organizations
>>>>>suffer from paternalistic statism, they are anti-civil liberties.
>>>>
>>>>The local paper here reports arrests, which are a matter of public record.
>>>
>>>Not all do, and a seizure doesn't have to have an associated arrest.
>>
>>In Massachusetts it does.
>
>       It's kind of sad just how completely wrong you are.

Well, I guess I'll have to start listening to my scanner more often.

>       The most often used seizure laws are *federal*, not state, because
>most state laws are much harder to make stick.  You legilsature may not have
>passed a law, but your police probably don't care.  They're playing ball
>in the fed's court, because the feds have neater toys.
>
>>>>In MAssachusetts, you are more likely to have someone break into your home,
>>>>than have someone threaten to shoot you on the street.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps I've been lucky, but I haven't been through experiences that would
>>>>make me want to carry a gun at all times, except when I lived in Boston.
>>>
>>>So, exactly what is your point?  That just because you have a warm and
>>>fuzzy feeling walking the streets, we all should?  Listen, as long as
>>>you are going to insist on not stating your points, we're not going to
>>>have an effective dialog.
>>
>>Do you carry a gun every day?
>
>       What difference, exactly does this make?
>
>>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.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns