Re: Take ten paces and then turn and fire!!

Joe E. Dees (
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:36:04 -0500

Date sent:      	Wed, 29 Sep 1999 02:52:18 -0400
From:           	"Michael S. Lorrey" <>
Subject:        	Re: Take ten paces and then turn and fire!!
Send reply to:

> john grigg wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I was just kidding on the idea of Mike and Joe duelling at ten paces! In
> > relation to the gun control debate between Mike Lorrey and Joe Dees I just
> > want to say both men have the right to discuss the matter but it does seem
> > to have been beaten to death here on the list.
> >
> > I realize both men feel they MUST counter any arguments brought forth by the
> > other no matter how many times it has been discussed before. I think this
> > is not so much for them but for any impressionable minds out there that are
> > not set yet in one way of looking at things at least in some matters(like
> > me).
> >
> > I wish we could have a formal debate between them moderated on this very
> > list by Greg Burch our legal eagle. Each man would have his turn and then a
> > chance for rebuttal would be given. It would go on for so many times and
> > then Mr. Burch would ask for closing statements.
> I would be happy to be involved in such a debate, but I personally would
> like to debate with someone who can actually bring information to the
> debate, not curses and personal attacks.
And the reference to the Francis Fukuyama article was not informative for you?
> >
> > Even if this did not end the debate we would have at least held a "formal"
> > debate of the matter. Kept relatively short I would read each post with
> > interest. I hope my idea is actually done.
> >
> > I consider banning the topic of gun control to be wrong along with banning
> > any topic on the list. I think it goes against extropian ideals.
> >
> > But at the same time I can remember countless times scrolling over numerous
> > long posts when you two debated in a desire to find topics that appealled to
> > me more. I feel like Captain Kirk on the bridge when the two powerful
> > aliens with black and white coloring on differing sides got into a
> > never-ending power struggle.
> >
> > I personally believe in the right of common citizens to bear arms when they
> > have gotten a concealment permit. There are those who would say the
> > information the government gets on a citizen is too much when the permit is
> > obtained but I am more worried about people packing heat who do not FULLY
> > understand the legal and real life ramifications of this.
> It is quite possible to have a system that both ensures that a person is
> a law abiding citizen, and prevents the government from being able to
> use this information to compile an ad hoc enemies list. It is currently
> in existence, it is called NICS, the National Instant Check System. The
> way it works (as specified under the Brady Bill) is that a person's
> name, SSN, etc are entered into the system, which replies with a go
> ahead, hold, or denied response. A Go Ahead response is supposed to
> immediately flush the evidence of the query on that individuals ID
> information, so there is not a longer term record that a specific law
> abiding individual bought a gun. Hold responses occur when there is iffy
> information, like a record of a temporary restraining order, on the
> database, that needs to be checked on to see if it is still in force.
> Denied responses are flagged and the ID information goes into a federal
> felony violation database.
> This system, which the Clinton's and the gun controllers fought tooth
> and nail against, was only added to the Brady Bill at the instistence of
> one party, the NRA. When the 5-day waitng period and the unfunded
> mandate on local law enforcement to perform background checks were
> tossed out by the Supreme Court, the administration belatedly
> institutded the NICS system, that they had originally promised would be
> in place within one year of the Brady Bill passage. However they
> instituted one illegal change in the system, the FBI keeps records of
> ALL individuals who are queried on in the database for 6 to 18 months.
> The FBI ostensibly claims that this is for 'auditing' purposes, but they
> have done only one audit, at the insistence of the Republican congress,
> they have illegally disseminated information about law abiding
> individuals to local law enforcement from the system, and they have only
> prosecuted ONE of the alleged tens of thousands of 'criminals' that were
> denied by the system, which is a gross case of capricious enforcement.
> >
> > I realize there are those who interpret the right to bear arms as very
> > different and think only police and soldiers should be issued guns. I
> > vehemently oppose this view. I honestly believe in the saying that "if you
> > take away all the guns in the end only criminals will have guns!"
> What they think is irrelevant. When Prof. Lawrence Tribe, arguably the
> most liberal recognised constitutional law professor in the country,
> agrees that the Cummins decision in the case US v. Emerson correctly
> interprets the Constitution that the right to keep and bear arms is an
> individual right, and that it should not be infringed at all, then only
> a pure Stalinist could continue to insist on any other interpretation.
> >
> > At the same time I find the idea of an America where everyone has a
> > concealed handgun to be a very sad and frightening place. But I feel the
> > option of being armed should be available to the public. Were I beaten and
> > mugged I would definitely get a concealed weapons permit and a pistol to go
> > with it.
> I personally place more trust in myself, and my fellow citizens, than in
> local, state, or federal police. Those citizens I am wrong in trusting
> will find out the error of their ways if they wish to test things.
> Considering that any given police officer is five times more likely to
> kill an innocent person at a crime scene than any given armed law
> abiding private citizen at a crime scene, it just a matter of public
> health to ban the police and arm the people. ;)
> >
> > The NRA lost my support when they opposed mandatory trigger locks on all
> > guns. I realize this law would slow down access to a weapon in a home
> > robbery situation but how many children must die to please the NRA??
> > Perhaps mandatory cases with electronic locks would work best though it
> > would be expensive by comparison.
> The NRA has always been the greatest proponent of gun safety. Indeed the
> first nationally used fire arms safety courses insituted outside the
> military were established by the NRA. The state of New York asked the
> NRA to formulate a standard safety course which was required of all gun
> permit applicants there. Massachusetts used to use the same course,
> until this year when they decided to copy the NRA course, and charge
> $200.00 to applicants to take the course, administered by state
> employees (union members, paid nice salaries w/ benefits rather than the
> usual free or almost free NRA volunteer), in addition to the permit fees
> and taxes.
> Trigger locks are indeed a hindrance to the safety of life and limb for
> any weapon to be used for self defense purposes. Keep in mind that prior
> to the industry agreement to include trigger locks (there as yet is no
> national trigger lock law), the rate of death and injury from accidental
> firearms discharges (in any age group) was at the lowest level of any
> time since such stats were first taken, in 1903. (National Safety Board
> stats). Since I don't have any kids, I don't keep my defense gun locked
> up, as I carry it most everywhere, but my other guns are locked in their
> cases, and I am awaiting the arrival of a much more secure safe, since
> my collection is growing.
> I am concerned bout my guns falling into the wrong hands, as is any gun
> owner, but I am more concerned about my life falling into the wrong
> hands. The stats say I have the proper priorities...
> >
> > Here in Alaska we view ourselves as living in the "last frontier" and I
> > suppose compared to other states have fairly open views on gun control. And
> > also we are a republican state rather then democratic. Actually I think
> > human predators are much more threatening here then the ones with claws and
> > antlers.
> >
> > Well, here I am contributing to the volume of gun control debate posts! But
> > I admit it is a very important topic with in my view no easy answers. And
> > it ties in at a core level I think with how government desires to hoarde
> > power for itself.
> >
> Considering that government repression kills more people around the
> world every year than any other non-natural factor, by large magnitudes,
> I agree with you. Considering that twenty to fifty times more people
> have been killed in the industrialized world alone this century by
> repressive governments on unarmed popultions than have been killed by
> violent crime between individuals, I say you are right on the money.
> Mike Lorrey