Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site we53.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!we53!bmt
From: bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas )
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: McDonald's (San Diego) Massacre
Message-ID: <222@we53.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Jul-84 13:14:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: we53.222
Posted: Mon Jul 23 13:14:41 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 09:30:43 EDT
References: <859@pucc-h> <898@pyuxa.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Technologies - St. Louis Missouri
Lines: 49

To T. C. Wheeler:

Your feelings about the issue closely parallel my own, however, I feel
a need to point out two things about some of what you proposen, not 
necessarily in the order presented.
	First, the idea of testing mental competence raises questions about
who says that you or I am mentally competent, or whether any measure of
mental competence, even if available, is valid in determining a person's
likelihood of using a weapon in a crime.  Obvious mental deficiencies
clearly related to the issue are easily seen and routinely ignored, and
such a process could indeed screen them.  Unfortunately, the fact that I
am happily married with two children and one on the way, have never been
arrested for other than minor traffic violations, and look perfectly
normal, will never disclose the fact that I am a psychopathic killer and
will kill whenever I think I could get away with it.  Another thing, the
one which concerns me most, is that my mental competence is then subject
to the state authorities, and if you think that they can judge that, then
you must be one of them. :-? Consider all of the social workers that you know.
I don't know about you, but most of the people I know of who have gone
into psychology, psychiatry, and social work have done so out of a need
to figure out their own problems!!  Also, mental competence is frequently
a handy excuse for getting rid of those whom other governments have political
problems with.  I know of a number of Christians is the USSR who are in
prison for this reason.
	Second, the question of "the right to keep and bear arms" was a big
one to the first Continental Congress, and to say that it isn't today is to
say that the reasons they wanted the new Constitution amended to include that
no longer exist -- an untenable position, I would think.  No, not to defend
yourself against Indians(although that same sort of risk exists more than
ever before in our concrete jungles), but to keep an oppressive government
from taking your freedoms away.
	My conclusion on all this?  Frankly, I am not particularly swayed
in one direction or the other, at least not emotionally.  Constitutionally,
I believe total gun control would be a disaster, I also believe the old
slogan about only outlaws having guns if they are outlawed.  I also believe
that there are elements in our government that would take even more freedoms
if they didn't think that the public would revolt, and that other governments
with such intentions have moved first to control guns.  I do not, however,
carry or even own, or intend in the near future to own, a gun of any sort.
I hope that I never feel the need to.  I would consider that one of the
greatest possible bondages.  More guns, more paranoia, more guns...
Sorry(this being net.flame) that I didn't have a definitive opinion to
offer, just those two main points.
 (Oh, yeah, I forgot.  What damage do you think that a .9mm slug could do?)
 You idiot. :-)

from over the rainbow of

	we53!bmt(Brian M. Thomas @ AT&T Technologies, St. Louis, MO)