Date sent: Fri, 28 May 1999 16:03:05 -0700 From: Doug Jones <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights] Send reply to: email@example.com
> Joe, you're hurting your credibility.
My credibility is just fine. The credibility of the rabid full-moon gun nuts on this list is nonexistent.
> Several posters, including
> myself, have raised the question of what standards of proof and due
> process your concept would require.
That has never been before raised to my knowledge (post a past mail and prove me wrong), but any due process that any other purported offence is granted seems equitable.
>You resort to profanity and
> crass insults but don't answer the concerns based on historically
> documented abuse of gun registration laws to disarm minorities
> (sometimes as a prelude to genocide or "ethnic cleansing").
That will not happen here, due in part to several constitutional amendments.
> The biggest loophole in your proposal is "Mentally deficient or
> deranged". It is a documented fact that allowing bureaucracies to
> determine who is deficient or deranged can be abused, (viz. Germany
> 1936), and you wrote,
As it was in the Soviet union, yet (contrary to the beliefs and/or wishes of some on this list) we have neither a communist nor a fascist government, but a constitutional democracy whose citizens possess rights to life, liberty, property, appeal, public defence and public advocacy. Stop arguing against America by bringing up the sickle and swastika herrings.
> "To support my point I state this: The guy I was just referring
> to who stated he would rather kill a police officer (who most
> likely has a wife and family) or other law enforcement officers
> than have his gun taken away SHOULD have his license revoked
> for saying that and have his weapons taken away as he is
> talking like a potential killer and is clearly a threat to
> the general public from my perspective."
Ahh, the domino theory again! First of all, I didn't write that. Second of all, how long would you tolerate an agressive blusterer brandishing a weapon at your wife and kids? No longer than your average police officer, I assume. But he should not be forced to relinquish his weapon for merely stating that he would defend his home and person. Try using MY rhetoric against me next time; I'd truly appreciate it if you'd get it right.
> Here we see an example of the slippery slope- you claim that this
> person is deranged *only* due to his political views. Of the groups
> on your list below, only _convicted_ violent criminals and children
> may be unequivocally denied the right to keep and bear arms- the
> others would be an open door to political oppression and tyranny.
More flowery rhetoric of the Tim McVeigh type. You own the T- shirt? Mike Lorrey'll sell you one. I'll send all the armed schizophrenics over to your house, ok?
> You want to disarm the man described above simply because he *does
> not want to be disarmed*, and is willing to fight such oppression.
As long as the cops aren't banging down his door, there's no problem. If he's a nut, kid or criminal, they SHOULD be taking his gun away, and better that he die than some shnook on the street who looks like a good target to him.
> Now do you see why some of us question your motives and goals? Your
> thinking is a catch-22... you seem to be saying that as long as a
> person doesn't mind being forcibly disarmed, he may (might?) keep
> those arms.
If they abrogate their rights by committing violent crimes, abusing their spouses and/or children, developing legitimately certifiable psychoses, then they NEED to be disarmed, and the sooner the better. If not, there's no problem.
> You feel that people are misquoting and misrepresenting you. I
> quote you verbatim, then point out your logical inconsistency. Can
> we discuss this without inflammatory words and rhetoric?
> Doug Jones, Rocket Plumber
> Rotary Rocket Company
> Joe E. Dees wrote:
> > Can't you FUCKING
> > READ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
> > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> > I said that I wanted laws passed that would deny gun ownership to:
> > 1) VIOLENT CRIMINALS
> > 2) THE MENTALLY DEFICIENT AND/OR DERANGED
> > 3) SPOUSE AND/OR CHILD ABUSERS
> > 4) CHILDREN
> > END OF LIST!
> > READ IT! SAVE IT TO YOUR HARD DISK! BRONZE IT!
> > MEMORIZE IT! STOP MISQUOTING AND MISREPRESENTING
> > IT!