From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Wed Mar 15 2000 - 18:09:07 MST
Date sent: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:21:56 -0500
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@datamann.com>
Organization: Datamann, Inc.
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: [GUNS\ Re: g*n c*ntr*l
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
>
> > Date sent: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:45:51 -0500
> > From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@datamann.com>
> > Organization: Datamann, Inc.
> > To: extropians@extropy.com
> > Subject: Re: [GUNS\ Re: g*n c*ntr*l
> > Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> >
> > > Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 1) It is illegal for the mentally incompetent to own or possess
> > > > > firearms.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) It is illegal for a convicted felon to own or possess a firearm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither myself, nor any other gun owner on this list, nor the NRA,
> > > > > has ever suggested that these laws be changed, in fact we insist
> > > > > they be enforced.
> > > >
> > > > To be fair, I have indeed argued against some of these things:
> > > > specifically the appropriate criteria for "insanity" or "incompetence"
> > > > that would render firearm posession unsafe and who would apply those
> > > > criteria are unclear. And I absolutely _do_ support the right of
> > > > convicted felons (especially those whose crimes did not involve the
> > > > discharging of a firearm--why fear an armed pot dealer/tax cheat?) to
> > > > have _all_ their civil rights restored after they have served their
> > > > time. If it is felt that a particular released violent felon should
> > > > not be granted this right, he should be classified in category (1).
> > >
> > > Similarly for those who are domestic abusers. Either convict them and strip
> > > their right, or lay off. Imposing a forfeiture of such a right without
> > > indictment or conviction is a prior restraint on that right, which is the most
> > > eggregious rights offense in the eyes of the court.
> > >
> > Yeah, wait'll he kills her, or she kills him, then punish the killer.
> > Retribution for a life lost is a poor substitute for attempting to
> > prevent the life being taken in the first place; both should be
> > employed - the first in the cases where the second fails.
>
> If he is dangerous, lock him up. Indict him. Convict him. If someone is a danger to
> society or to individuals in that society, then they should not be walking around
> freely, should they? This is part and parcel to my arguments that the existing laws
> need to be enforced.
> --
Without an easily accessible purchase-prohibited registry which
must be checked prior to sale, such laws are unenforceable,
especially as regards to violent criminals who have done their time,
and MOST especially as to violent repeat offenders who have
served their sentences, but also including those who have
restraining orders issued against them, and the incompetent or
insane.
>
> TANSTAAFL!!!
>
> Michael S. Lorrey
> Member, Extropy Institute
> http://www.extropy.org
> Member, National Rifle Association
> http://www.nra.org
> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
> - General John Stark
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:25 MST