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: <628@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 16:44:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.628
Posted: Mon Aug  5 16:44:01 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 00:17:09 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 34


>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.

>Jim Ingram                       {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi

Jim, perhaps, but more likely I was responding to your (certainly-looked-
inflammatory-and-unnecessary-to-me) comment in your little "what-if" set-
up that you suspected that "most netters" would blow the rapist away. (or
was it just most "pro-gun" netters?  I don't quite recall.)

Kinda silly to determine for me what I'm responding to, isn't it?  Kinda
silly to determine what "most netters" would do, too, isn't it?  Isn't it
smarter to ask than to decide all on your own what lots of individuals
would do?  Oh, yeh, that wouldn't support your argument. . .

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

Your posting directly implied that "most netters" in your "what-if" scenario
don't know diddly-squat about due-process, constitutionality, and the laws
of the land.  My response and question:
>> 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?

also doesn't have anything to do with limitations on the right to bear
arms, but directly relates to your "due-process" and "laws of the land"
comments.

This is English, isn't it?

Adrienne Regard