From: Andy Wilson <ajw@Think.COM>
To: kone@COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU
Message Hash: d9ee5bc5a92c318d4280ebf54770544381ccc70c74cb23ff92bfd4b87b7318eb
Message ID: <9311122028.AA00561@custard.think.com>
Reply To: <2CE33AED@COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU>
UTC Datetime: 1993-11-12 20:29:36 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 12 Nov 93 12:29:36 PST
From: Andy Wilson <ajw@Think.COM>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 93 12:29:36 PST
To: kone@COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Instant check system
In-Reply-To: <2CE33AED@COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: <9311122028.AA00561@custard.think.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From: kone@COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 02:27:00 -0500
[...]
One final item, I do agree that weapon ownership is not the issue we should
talk to, but how can we protect our privacy yet keep "rights-violators" from
open access to weapons.
William Kone
"I have trained over a thousand young men to eat, sleep, and shoot with their
weapon. But, I still get worried the first time I give them the rifels."
I disagree with your premise that there is any need to keep "rights-violators"
from open access to weapons.
The Brady Bill will have no effect on crime. It is a pathetic band-aid
solution that does nothing to address the real causes of crime. It will
only result in more potential abuses of the rights of law-abiding citizens.
1. Criminals don't always buy weapons from liscensed dealers, and
after the bill passes and the system is in place, they won't at all.
But this will not keep even one criminal from getting a weapon. You
can get weapons easily and cheaply on the street.
2. The waiting period will have no effect other than deny law-abiding
citizens in imminent danger the right to defend themselves. When
someone threatens to kill you, they are not going to wait seven
days before they do it. This is especially urgent for people who
are being stalked. The waiting period will not keep even one
potential murderer from getting a weapon, but will result in anyone
who is in danger being a sitting duck for seven days.
3. Any reason other than prior convictions as grounds for denial would
be unconstitutional. Alleging mental illness in order to deny civil
rights was a favorite tactic of the former Soviet Union, and has
been used in this country not so long ago to deny civil rights to
homosexuals. People with behavior patterns that don't fit the white
bread norm do not forfeit their right to self defense. c.f. Szasz,
"The Myth of Mental Illness".
4. Convicted murderers belong in jail. If we didn't let them out,
we wouldn't need to check their backgrounds. The way to keep
"rights-violators" from open access to weapons is to keep them
in jail. In order for this to happen prisons need to be privately
held profit-making entities.
I don't think there is any need for either a backround check or a waiting
period.
Curiously, a police officer in Cambridge told me recently that there is a
law still on the books in Massachussetts that it is unlawful for a head
of household to be in public *without* a firearm on Sundays, the rationale
being that the head of household is responsible for the defense of the
family. I wonder if he is correct.
Andy
Return to November 1993
Return to ““Patrick M. Fitzgerald” <pmfitzge@fitz.b30.ingr.com>”