Re: [GUNS\ Re: g*n c*ntr*l

From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Fri Mar 17 2000 - 12:18:31 MST

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) >Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:01:54 -0500
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
>To: extropians@extropy.com
>Subject: Re: [GUNS\ Re: g*n c*ntr*l
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>
>"Joe E. Dees" wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>If they have done their time, and are rehabilitated, they are no longer
>a threat to society, so once their parole period is up, give them back
>their rights. If they are a threat, don't let them out of prison. This
>is such a simple concept.
>
>Mike Lorrey
>
Then you are on record as advocating life without possibility of parole for anyone convicted of using a gun in a crime?

------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:28 MST