('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:26:00 -0400
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Re: GUNS: Why here?
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>Joe Dees wrote:
>>
>> >From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
>> >To: <extropians@extropy.org>
>> >Subject: Re: GUNS: Why here?
>> >Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 09:50:24 -0700
>> >Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>> >
>> >James Rogers wrote,
>> >
>> >> The intent of the individual has far more bearing on your personal safety
>> >> than any tools they may have on their person.
>> >
>> But when we can verify by means of a person's criminal or mental history that their intent is violently predatory or irresponsible, we should deny them the tools with which to actualize such intent.
>
>Without interfering in the rights of law abiding citizens. If the goal of the
>judicial system is such that they would prefer that ten men go free to prevent
>one innocent man from being convicted, then a similar preference should be made
>to protect the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens.
>
But the people placed on the purchase-prohibited list ARE INDEED either criminally guilty (not law-abiding) or certifiably mentally incompetent (not sane). It's in their histories - not their futures; their pasts. Law-abiding and sane adults are not placed on such a list; it isn't designed for their inclusion, and their 2nd amendment rights are consequently not infringed.
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT