-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
/
Copy path0025.html
99 lines (99 loc) · 4.93 KB
/
0025.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
<!-- received="Tue Jul 1 23:26:35 1997 MDT" -->
<!-- sent="Tue, 1 Jul 1997 22:06:28 -0700" -->
<!-- name="Anton Sherwood" -->
<!-- email="[email protected]" -->
<!-- subject="Re: Hooray for the 10th Amendment ???" -->
<!-- id="[email protected]" -->
<!-- inreplyto="Hooray for the 10th Amendment ???" -->
<title>extropians: Re: Hooray for the 10th Amendment ???</title>
<h1>Re: Hooray for the 10th Amendment ???</h1>
Anton Sherwood (<i>[email protected]</i>)<br>
<i>Tue, 1 Jul 1997 22:06:28 -0700</i>
<p>
<ul>
<li> <b>Messages sorted by:</b> <a href="date.html#25">[ date ]</a><a href="index.html#25">[ thread ]</a><a href="subject.html#25">[ subject ]</a><a href="author.html#25">[ author ]</a>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0026.html">Michael M. Butler: "Re: Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma"</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0024.html">Anton Sherwood: "POLI: Hooray for the 10th Amendment"</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
<!-- reply="end" -->
</ul>
<hr>
<!-- body="start" -->
quoth Abraham Moses Genen, evidently not a member of JPFO,<br>
: The claim that many people are being improperly denied the right to<br>
: bear arms seems more than slightly specious. The high court has ruled<br>
: on this issue as well in great detail. They have concluded that the<br>
: right to bear arms is not absolute and can be regulated by the Federal<br>
: government, the States and and political subdivisions thereof.<br>
<p>
Have they really? So much for the myth that the Supreme Court has<br>
for generations avoided hearing any Second Amendment cases.<br>
<p>
Anyway, this element of the challenge to the Brady Act is not on Second <br>
Amendment grounds, but on the ground that the denials are capricious. The <br>
authority to deny a license does not imply authority to deny it randomly.<br>
<p>
: The need for firearms in our society seem questionable as well in many<br>
: instances.<br>
: The arguements as to the need for self-defense against predators in our<br>
: society is best answered by having professionally trained law enforcement<br>
: officials in each community.<br>
<p>
I thought we had 'em. They're the guys who broke down my friend's door<br>
and stole his merchandise and his computers (and his wife's gun).<br>
<p>
: I'm a bit dubious as to the need of hunters for many of the rapid fire<br>
: arms that are readily available<br>
<p>
De gustibus non disputandum!<br>
<p>
: as well as the need for handguns. The collected cumulitive evidence<br>
: indicates that most people who claim they need a handgun for self<br>
: defense are usually incapable of using one under siuations of stress.<br>
: They frequently end up shooting other family members or themselves.<br>
<p>
More often, they end up shooting nobody, because the aggressor flees<br>
on seeing the gun. The professionally trained law enforcement officials <br>
are said to shoot the wrong person about eleven times as often as armed <br>
civilians do. (I believe this ratio is normalized for total number of <br>
shootings.) This suggests that delegating the power to shoot badguys <br>
was a bad idea. If shooters are incompetent, some of the blame must <br>
go to city councils that drive out practice ranges for being icky.<br>
<p>
The claim frequently quoted that "a gun in the home is 43 times more <br>
likely to kill a family member than to kill an intruder" is, even if <br>
accurate, meaningless. People defending themselves against violent mates <br>
are counted among the 43 -- is it better for husbands to strangle wives<br>
than for wives to shoot husbands? The vast majority of armed encounters, <br>
in which nobody is killed, are ignored (though surely some would have <br>
been killed if unarmed).<br>
<p>
: It's possible that the issue of paranoia in our society is entering the<br>
: minds of some of you, as well as the numerous psycho-sexual implications<br>
: of gun collecting, so I'll let this issue ride while you digest and<br>
: consider the bigger picture.<br>
<p>
My sex-life is disappointing, and I own a great big pistol.<br>
I deny feeling particularly sexy when I fire it.<br>
<p>
: For those who are sceptical about my motives. Yes, I am an occasional<br>
: casual hunter. Yes, I use a single shot shotgun or a compound bow when<br>
: I hunt. Yes, I've had to use deadly weapons in the distant past. No, I<br>
: did not enjoy having to use them. The circumstances under which I was<br>
: required to use weapons I'll leave to your fertile imaginings.<br>
<p>
Why, don't the circumstances suit your rhetorical point?<br>
<p>
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* [email protected]<br>
(owner of one gun, never drawn on a living target)<br>
<!-- body="end" -->
<hr>
<p>
<ul>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0026.html">Michael M. Butler: "Re: Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma"</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0024.html">Anton Sherwood: "POLI: Hooray for the 10th Amendment"</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
<!-- reply="end" -->
</ul>