Re: META: Not another flamewar (BUT RE: a bit of GUNS & a bit of

Michael S. Lorrey (
Mon, 07 Jun 1999 17:01:16 -0400

"Joe E. Dees" wrote:

> Date sent: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 09:54:09 -0400
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
> >
> 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. 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.

> >
> > 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.

> >
> >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?????

> >
> > 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.

> >
> > 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.

> >
> >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?

> > > 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.

Mike Lorrey