From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Mon Jun 07 1999 - 17:38:14 MDT
Date sent: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 17:01:16 -0400
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@lorrey.com>
Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: META: Not another flamewar (BUT RE: a bit of GUNS & a bit of
(meta?) rhetoric
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
>
> > Date sent: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 09:54:09 -0400
> > From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@lorrey.com>
> > >
> > In other words, if a constitutional amendment cannot survive the
> > free-spending NRA's effort to block its passage in the requisite
> > state and federal legislatures, you have no problems with violent
> > criminals, kids and the certifiably insane being allowed free and
> > unfettered access to quick and efficient means of long-range mass
> > murder. That is what your position amounts to.
>
> The NRA cannot afford to have the sort of influence you claim it would have on a Constitutional
> Amendment, especially not now. Its all nice and dandy that you can vilify the NRA like its some nazi
> group or something, but it would not have the influence it does have if it did not have the millions
> of members that it does.
>
The nazi party had a large membership in Germany, and they
considered themselves the patriots fighing against the forces of
chaos and disorder, too.
>
> Since the NRA has come out in support of rational limits to
irresponsible
> individuals owning guns, they are hardly the sort of extremist nuts you make them out to be.
>
And please enunciate exactly what their proposed limits are, to
whom they apply, and how they will labor to get them put in place,
and give me an independent reference I can check for myself. Your
and mark@unicorn.com 's credibility is zero with me. Since I
caught the two of you lying ABOUT me; I do not trust you to speak
the truth TO me.
> > >
> > > I do think that anyone who buys a gun should have at the very least an informal
> > > training in proper firearm use, if not a formal class. I think that we should
> > > take the same attitude we take with sex education, driver education, and drug
> > > education in the schools, and provide firearms safety education. Most all high
> > > schools used to do so, but eliminated such classes due to NEA pressure. I think
> > > this is probably a contributing factor to the wave of teen gun violence in the
> > > past decade, i.e. nothing has been there to teach responsible use, respect for
> > > the technology and the law, etc.
> > >
> > The Golden boy had been taken to firearms training class by his
> > NRA member father. He shot his teachers and schoolmates from
> > the ridge above his school very skillfully.
>
> So you have said on numerous occasions, but its only anecdotal evidence. The government's own study
> shows that children that are trained in responsible gun use are FAR less likely to commit such
> crimes. In fact, of all of the children who have commited these crimes in the last decade, only the
> Golden boy had such training, which indicates that untrained children are more likely to commit such
> crimes.
>
It is only anecdotal evidence that Lincoln was assassinated by
someone with southern sympathies. These classes are part and
parcel of the same kind of cynical marketing ploy that the cigarette
companies use to prey on our young in the name of their future
markets, except that the gun manufacturers want to use taxpayers
money to indoctrinate the young into the gun culture. Next you
would constrain all to take such training; after that, everyone would
be required to own and maintain a gun (see below). Slippery slope,
anyone?
> > >
> > >The concern about proper training is a valid
> > > one that even the founding fathers recognised, which is why the term "well
> > > regulated" is in the 2nd amendment, which in that day and age meant well trained
> > > and skilled. Its IMHO everyone's constitutional DUTY to learn to responsibly use
> > > weapons because of this, unless they have a religious type of reticence against
> > > violence even in defense, as is provided for Contientious Objectors, then they
> > > are exampted.
> > >
> I notice you didn't reply to anything up here.... any reason?????
>
You clearly labeled it your opinion, and anyone who has followed
your extremist line of reasoning would have no difficulty believing
that, considering the source.
> > >
> > > When political opinions which were the mainstream core of societal values are
> > > considered by the current establishment to be a sign of mental instability, then
> > > the validity of using mental competency as a means of depriving people of their
> > > civil rights ought to come into serious question. When people on this list
> > > participating in this very discussion promote the removal of civil rights for
> > > their political opinions, and are the same people promoting the same removal for
> > > mental competency, I get very nervous.
> > >
> > The people who would decide whether someone is guilty of a
> > violent crime or mentally incompetent would be the same people
> > who are already doing it, and their decisions would be just as
> > appelable as they are now. There need be no intermediate or
> > intervening agency created; it could just be made a part of the
> > process that upon conviction of a violent crime or judgment of
> > mental incompetence, that a person's name is automatically added
> > to the purchase-prohibited registry.
>
> Its all fine and dandy to say that, but you know that every time some atrocity happens, the anti-gun
> groups will demand another group get added to the list of bad people, and it will happen too.
>
You are afraid to take one step towerd improving our culture
because you envision slippery slope banana peels under both feet.
> > >
> > > Under a libertarian society outlook, a former violent criminal will find
> > > significant barriers to their ability to carry heat, namely their ability to
> > > obtain insurance coverage and gain employment.
> > >
> > As if muggers or gangsters care about such things; they're self-
> > employed.
>
> And they get quickly dead in a society where individuals take care of themselves.
>
24 out of 25 times, fatal shootings are ruled murder, not justifiable
homicide, which indicates that the bad guys are overwhelmingly
likely to be BEHIND the bullets.
> > >
> > >Under the current system there is
> > > existing means for rehabilitated individuals to regain their right to own and
> > > use guns, its called an appeal for removal of civil disability. There is the
> > > InstaCheck system for verifying the eligibility of gun purchasers, which I
> > > support, as its a database of banned and questionable individuals, just as Joe
> > > propounds about. My only objection to the administration of this system is that
> > > the powers that be are illegally and unconstitutionally using the system to
> > > collect records of gun purchases by law abiding individuals, as a quasi-gun
> > > registration system.
> > >
> > I agree that lists of law-abiding purchasers of firearms should not
> > be compiled, as a right-to-privacy issue, for they have neither
> > committed a crime to justify such a civil rights sacrifice, nor have
> > they been judged incompetent (which would put their privacy rights
> > in the hands of a ward).
>
> Yet the government you trust to run the system you propose is violating the system we have now that
> most satisfys it. I fail to see how you can stand there and continue to assert that your system will
> not be abused as it is now. Where do you buy those kind of blinders?
>
I propose to fight any such abuse as passionately as I fight to keep
guns out of the hands of nuts and mad dogs. You would be best
served by doing the same, agreeing to logical, rational and
reasonable restrictions and demanding that the constraints on
them be obeyed instead of isolating yourself in your little extremist
cocoon and alienating the mass majority of Americans with your
absolutist stand.
>
> > > > One last thing: in BC Crandall's 2nd anthology (whose title I can't recall
> > > > just now), there is , of course an article on u-fog and embedded in there,
> > > > almost as an incidental-thought-in-passing, is the notion that nanotech (of
> > > > some sort--some type of u-fog more or less) would enable a kind of
> > > > macro-level active shield sort of interpersonal environment by be programmed
> > > > to disallow (and pre-empt, intervene against, etc.) any would-be act(s) of
> > > > AGGRESSION between and amongst people (and we're talking bodily aggression
> > > > here, but this could be applied to some extent to "property" objects and
> > > > what-not, as well). This struck me a way-cool (and utterly logical) and
> > > > could be seen as the ultimate evolution/limiting case of non-lethal "weapon"
> > > > tech thread here on the chatlist lately. Just a thought/quasi-reference!!
> > >
> > > Yes, it is an interesting idea. I personally look forward to its development,
> > > but I will vehemently oppose any attempt to confiscate my property, or limits to
> > > my ability to obtain property of a defensive nature under the rationalization
> > > that the promise of this technology negates my need for other means of defense.
> > >
> > As long as you are of age and are neither judged mentally
> > incompetent by a psychiatric board nor convicted of a violent crime,
> > I have no problems with you keeping and bearing. I do, however,
> > wish that you'd retract the lie you told accusing me of saying that
> > divorce would be a valid reason for addition to any purchase-
> > prohibited list, a statement I most certainly did not make, as any
> > review of the list records will clearly show.
>
> As I recall the context was that the divorcee had a restraining order. If it was not then I was
> mistaken. I would appreciate if you retracted your numerous claims that I advocate that anyone and
> everyone should have any weapons at all. Those are even worse lies.
>
Restraining order was mentioned; divorce was not. The time when
one spouse is most likely to be shot to death by the other is after a
restraining order has been issued, and the abusive spouse sees all
other options for control of the other outside of homicide wither
away. You may not have demanded that all citizens keep and
bear, but your continual brandishing of the hardly democratic and
nowhere near racially diverse Swiss model (did you know that only
recently were women allowed to vote there?) as well as some of
your other comments in this very thread, which I shall post below,
could effortlessly be interpreted that way, and you do seem to be
against ANY measures which would place ANY BARRIERS
WHATSOEVER between violent criminals, the mentally
incompetent, and the underage and the easy obtainability of the
quick and efficient means to commit long-range mass homicide. If
you are in favor of ANY such measures, please enunciate them
and your willingness to work for passage of them. Your comments
concerning mandatory gun ownership, except for those who would
be willing to stigmatize themselves in a manner not unlike those
who refuse to pray or stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in school,
from this very post, are below.
>
> > >The concern about proper training is a valid
> > > one that even the founding fathers recognised, which is why
the term "well
> > > regulated" is in the 2nd amendment, which in that day and
age meant well trained
> > > and skilled. Its IMHO everyone's constitutional DUTY to learn
to responsibly use
> > > weapons because of this, unless they have a religious type
of reticence against
> > > violence even in defense, as is provided for Conscientious
Objectors, then they
> > > are exempted.
> > >
> Mike Lorrey
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:02 MST