Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site weitek.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!turtlevax!weitek!robertp
From: robertp@weitek.UUCP (Robert Plamondon)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame,net.legal
Subject: Re: Personal Defenses
Message-ID: <161@weitek.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Apr-85 14:44:33 EST
Article-I.D.: weitek.161
Posted: Wed Apr 17 14:44:33 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Apr-85 00:40:45 EST
References: <1518@decwrl.UUCP> <420@utai.UUCP> <539@ihu1h.UUCP> <188@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Weitek Corp. Sunnyvale Ca.
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.politics:8567 net.flame:9341 net.legal:1568

>> I think the point of whether it is good or not good to carry personal
>> defense weapons (unconcealed) is moot when compared with the fact that if I
>> WANT to and am not violating someone else's personal rights, I should be
>> able to. I think that says it all.	-- Jay Mitchell
> 
> The trouble is that some people feel they have a personal right not to
> be faced with an implicit threat of armed force.  -- Baba

I applaud Baba's statement: it contains the distilled essence of the
fuzzy-mindedness that people associate with California. People have a RIGHT
to a life that keeps them feeling warm and safe, and doesn't FACE them with
such HORRID events such as crime, murder, death, and the worldwide shortage
of hot tubs.

Jay shouldn't be able to tote a gun, not so much because Baba expects to be
shot with it, but because it FACES Baba with the CONCEPT that violence might
somehow intrude into an otherwise comfy existence.

The answer, of course, is for Jay to carry a concealed weapon.  It's just as
effective, and doesn't intrude on anyone's dream-world.

	Robert