Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site digi-g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!brian
From: brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame,net.legal
Subject: Re: Personal Defenses
Message-ID: <571@digi-g.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 11:18:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: digi-g.571
Posted: Fri Apr 26 11:18:44 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 02:59:14 EDT
References: <1518@decwrl.UUCP> <420@utai.UUCP> <539@ihu1h.UUCP> <188@spar.UUCP> <161@weitek.UUCP>
Reply-To: brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian)
Organization: Digigraphic Systems Corp., Mpls, MN
Lines: 15
Xref: watmath net.politics:8802 net.flame:9659 net.legal:1636
Summary: 

> 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

Interesting that this statement can be parsed two ways:

...I should be able to [carry personal defense weapons].

...I should be able to [violate someone else's personal rights].

The first meaning was meant, of course, but it makes the second easier, too.

Merlyn Leroy
"Eat photons, terran scum!"