From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 01:22:19 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: NRA and National Online Records Check bullshit
In-Reply-To: <v03102805afdee15fe080@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970702171335.474C-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




> - Hanging--very quick and very painless (the neck is snapped, and
> consciousness vanishes)

Actually it was only relatively recently that this became the case, I 
believe it was either William Calcraft or one of the Pierrepont family 
who perfected the drop calculation method of hanging (both families were 
British executioners, Calcraft at Newgate prison and the Pierreponts at 
various places over a long period of time), before that it was quite 
common for the condemned to either choke to death if the drop was too 
short, or to be beheaded if it was too long. Newgate prison is 
incidentally the same place where as late as 1789 people were burnt to 
death for witchcraft, sophisticated England huh? ;-)... 

> - Electrocution--originally designed to render subject unconscious almost
> immediately. Whether it does this merits discussion, but the original
> intent was surely for a "scientific" fast death (just as the guillotine was
> similarly designed)

I don`t know the exact figure but I seem to remember a US execution using 
the electric chair which took over 40 minutes to complete? I believe a 
typical time from current on to unconsciousness is around 2 minutes?

> >I can see the point of view which accepts serving of sentence as being
> >the end of punishment, and I do not accept a ban on firearms as being
> >implicit in the commision of a felony, but if a court explicitly states
> >that part of the punishment should be a X year or lifetime ban I can
> >accept that.
> 
> Does this mean that you would "accept" a wording which took away a released
> convict's ability to speak freely, or to practice the religion of his
> choice?

No, speech or practice of religion are not of the same ilk as the right 
to own firearms, I am definitely on thin ice here, and I admit I am not 
entirely certain of my own perspective, BUT I cannot see how someone 
convicted of armed robbery should be allowed the right to own firearms again.
A person convicted of a violent armed crime is just not in the same 
league as an innocent citizen, and should not have the same rights.

 
> ("Upon completion of your 6-month sentence for public blasphemy, you 
> must renounce Baalism and accept the religion so ordered by the court.")
> 
> Why is this any different from taking away Second Amendment rights? 

See the above, I refer you to the danger of a person who has already 
proven their disregard for the rights of others being allowed to own weapons.

> But how does a lifetime, blanket ban on possession of firearms--i.e., a 
> complete denial of Second Amendment rights--for any of tens of thousands
> of claimed "felonies" fit with this "compelling need" model? What's the
> compelling need for the state to deny Second Amendment rights for life
> to someone convicted of fraud or money laundering? 

Tim, you are either taking me out of context or overgeneralising my 
statement, as I know you are not of the second persuation I will assume 
the first and re-iterate that I do not believe in the restriction of 
second ammendment rights for people convicted of felonies in general, 
only for those convicted of serious violent crimes. And I do not believe 
in a lifetime blanket ban, ie. "All convicted armed robbers shall never 
be allowed to posess firearms again", I believe a court should be able to 
use its own discretion to decide a fitting punishment, ie. "You shall be 
sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and a 10 year ban on ownership of 
firearms".


> The compelling need appears to be related to the general trend of 
> disarming as many of the marks as possible, as soon as possible. 
> (I understand, Paul, that you are not a U.S. citizen, but this is the 
> framework for the current discussion.) 

This is an evident trend in most of the world, with the UK following the 
path of the US. For many years it has been the case that on the commision 
of any crime, even for example drink-driving, or common assult (a UK 
offence classification for the most trivial of assult cases, ie. hitting 
someone), the right to own guns is immediately removed and never 
returned, even when the offence is spent under the rehabilitation act. I 
recall my own father having trouble obtaining a firearms licence some 
years ago because of a drink-drive conviction some 20 years earlier...

I will state once more though, and attempt not to post again on this 
thread as I don`t want a flame war, that I do not support or condone 
general loss of 2nd ammendment rights for any and all felonies in 
general, only for serious violent crimes and then at the discretion of a 
court and not as some pre-set standard penalty.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"