Re: GUNS: Why here?

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Sat Sep 23 2000 - 08:01:29 MDT


In a message dated 9/23/00 2:49:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
samantha@objectent.com writes:<< These things are also a matter of life and
death of real people, some of them quite close to me. - samantha >>

Samantha,
    You are dead on. In essence we seem to be saying "Samantha you are not
worthy to defend yourself; but if some criminal or insane person decides to
injure you we will eventually probably catch them and punish them. In the
meantime you are to be a sheep and be afraid to go ahead and live your life
as a free and responsible adult."
    As a result, we have a nation of politicians that tell us to go
unprotected where they will only go behind a circle of armed men. Can you
imagine the politician that would go into the worse neighborhoods of New York
or Chicago without a detail of bodyguards. I was in Waterloo, Iowa for the
1980 Presidential Primaries staying in what was the best hotel in very law
abiding town. The visiting candidates wouldn't even come out of their rooms
without protection.
    Sorry but I have to tell this. A local guy, in that town, sued his wife
for a no fault divorce and moved in with his intended. A year later just as
the divorce was becoming final and in the middle of the local primaries I met
his wife and began dating her. He took exception to that and announced he
would "chase us down." That night I put her in her car in the hotel parking
lot. (The hotel was also the locale of the most popular nightspot in town)
I noticed she was nervous and watching for him.
    I told her, "Relax, Senator Kennedy is staying in the hotel and they even
have a rifleman on the roof. If your ex even raises his voice around here he
will be face down in this parking lot before he knows what hit him." All of
that was true. It was like living in a prison.
    But my point is those same people want us to go undefended.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:44 MDT