Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Handgun control--one more time
Message-ID: <606@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 16:59:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.606
Posted: Tue Jul 30 16:59:36 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 00:21:47 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 21

>Laws, due process, the Constitution, etc. are what makes even NYC different
>from, say, San Salvador.

Yes.  Laws, the Constitution, etc., (and the investigation that occurs as a
part of due process) is what protects the rights of all of us -- those who
choose to carry weapons and those who don't.  You ask how the "vigilanties"
of the net could presume otherwise.  I ask how the persons-who-would-use-
such-inflamatory-and-biased-terms-as-vigilanties could presume otherwise.

You assume a lot in your probable answer to the "what if" set up.  The fact
that certain people support the right to bear arms does not mean that they
are irresponsible or incredibly stupid.  If the problem were really that
simple, wouldn't it have been solved long ago?  The situation that exists
is that many intelligent, responsible, civic-minded, fair, and just people
stand on both sides of the issue.

And I _don't_ think that the reasonable people, on either side of the issue,
are interested in subverting the established laws.  Why imply otherwise?
What is served by that paranoia?

Adrienne Regard