Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site SCIRTP.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!SCIRTP!jimi
From: jimi@SCIRTP.UUCP (Jim Ingram)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Handgun control--one more time
Message-ID: <278@SCIRTP.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 19:14:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: SCIRTP.278
Posted: Fri Aug  2 19:14:04 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 07:14:06 EDT
References: <606@ttidcc.UUCP>
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 65

> >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

I believe in the right to bear arms. I don't feel that my
posting advocated any limitations on the right to bear arms.

What I don't believe in is the rights of people, whether
police or private citizens, to shoot someone who is allegedly
committing a crime. (It is a rare case when police cannot
muster enough support to contain a situation. In general I
don't think that police are justified in most of the shootings
they do.)

I looked up vigilante in the dictionary (Webster) and found:

	A member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress
	and punish crime summarily (as when the process of law 
	appear inadequate).

The person who posted what I responded to certainly is a vigilante
in the sense of this definition. He or she implied that since the
police were not available (apparent inadequacy of the law) that
someone would be justified in becoming policeman, prosecutor, jury,
judge, and executioner. I disagreed.

Whenever I read the news there are articles advocating the elimination
of this group or that individual or this or that country, etc.
I am justified in assuming that people who fit the dictionary def-
inition of vigilante are readers of this net, and based on their own
words, justified in believing a lot of people out there in netland
are ready to pull triggers at a range of provocations.

I didn't mean to use "vigilante" in an inflammatory, biased way,
and I don't believe it was. I called someone what he or she has 
stated he or she is. Perhaps you are sensitive to points of view 
that appear to limit the right to bear arms and tend to read meanings 
into the words of people who you think disagree with you.

"Guns don't kill people - bullets kill people."
-- 

	The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily
	represent the views of any other individuals or organizations.

Jim Ingram			 {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi
SCI Systems, Inc.   	   P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709            919 549 8334