From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Thu Mar 16 2000 - 06:01:54 MST
"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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:26 MST