From: Llywelyn <samman@CS.YALE.EDU>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 94 20:36:28 PDT
To: Jim Sewell - KD4CKQ <jims@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Please be patient with me.
In-Reply-To: <9404250310.AA19895@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9404242320.X23743-d100000@jaguar.zoo.cs.yale.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> <My computer told me that Llywelyn said:>
> > ASIDE:  I often wonder why people don't want us in the inner city to have
> > guns.  I wonder if its just a bit of racism that fears the empowerment of
> > people with guns, ...
>   1. Why are all "inner city" residents black?  In Louisville, KY where I
> 	 grew up the "inner city" was a neighborhood called Portland and it
> 	 had only white trash there.  You know, the kind that would shoot you

Cause all the inner city residents I grew up with, went to school with,
hung out with, and shot hoop with were black.  My fault, but my response
was tinged by my own experiences.

>   2. I'm afraid of any drugged person having a gun.  I'm afraid of any
> 	 resentful person, hateful person, nothing-to-live-for person, etc.
> 	 having a gun... not a city area, but a mentality... a mentality 
> 	 that can be found in any neighborhood.

So am I.  But he's going to have that gun whether I like it or not.  The
question that arises in response is, "Can I protect myself against this
drugged/hateful/nothing-to-live-for person?"  And if the answer is yes,
then I must ask myself how.  I personally don't like the odds of
hand-to-hand combat versus a gun, I like to even the odds.


>   3. My philosophy: I'm sorry my great great grand daddy did something
> 	 bad to your great great grand daddy, but don't blame me for it and
> 	 don't expect me to "make up" for it, cuz I'm neither responsible
> 	 nor able to make up for something that happened that long ago with
> 	 different people involved.

Very good.  That's what America is about.  Clean starts.  You shouldn't
have to pay for it, but everyone should help to chip in, because if
everyone doesn't then there will be a big disaster later donw the road
that is even less appealing.  It seems that now a lot of rage and
frustration is coming out through the only safety valve available, and
that stopgap measures will no longer be sufficient.

I'm just suggesting that maybe it may be in everyone's best interest to
'make up' for it now, because the social pressures that will one day be
exerted may not be something that you want to see when the pot finally
boils over.  Plus, and this is personal, I'm for improving the lot of as
many people as possible.

> > the BoR and the Declaration mean nothing.  Ever been stopped and given
> > the third degree for simply being in the wrong neighborhood?  The
> > exchange when something like:
> > 
> > Cop: "What are you doing here?"
> > Me: "Driving"
> > Cop: "Where are you going?"
> > Me: "To visit a friend."
> > Cop: "What's the address?"
> > Me "I didn't realize that we had a pass law in effect.  Did I take a wrong
> >     turn and end up in Pretoria?"
> > Cop: "Get out of the car."
> 
>    Nope, I've had better sense than to dis the cops when I get stopped.
>    They are in authority and if you don't recognize that then they
>    will help you "see the light".  Sounds like you had a smart attitude
>    and the cop decided to show you who had the right end of the gun.

This is probably true.  <grin>  Ah well, I've always had a problem
blindly following authroity and not challenging it as my parents will be
the first to tell you.  

>    3. Where is the crypto angle and how did it get so off-track?

The crypto angle is closely tied into the angle of unreasonable search
and seizures.  You see, the unreasonable search and seizure of our words,
our thoughts, indeed the very things that a democracy is founded
upon--ideas is what crypto is attempting to protect.  That in order to
protect these rights, and have them apply to crypto, we have to have them
apply in as many places as possible, in as many schemas as possible.  

I question whether if a government will not give us security in our own
homes, how they can give us our privacy in as elusive of a concept to the
average American as cyberspace.  This is the crypto angle.  In order to
fight for crypto, we have to fight for all the other rights because
privacy is assumed and implied as the culmination of the entire
BoR<Unicorn give me some help here, or correct me> because isn't privacy
the vehicle and the end of the rights enumerated in the BoR?  We can't
have privacy without being able to protect it<2nd> and that privacy isn't
worth much unless the government is prohibited from invading it <4th and
5th Amendments>, etc.

>   Truly folks, I hope this ends and apologize.  As I said, I hope I
>   came close enough to J.Random Poster's feelings that he will let it
>   die here and not feel a need to reply further.  I can be contacted
>   via private email if anyone wishes to pursue this with me further.

Very well.  Contacy me via private e-mail. I can't promise quick
responses as its finals here in the Elm city, but I wanted to point out
the points above, especially in the last 2 paragraphs.

Ben.