NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/19923

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsc!cbfsb!att-out!pacbell.com!lll-winken!wyrm!UUCP
From: [e-mail] (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: The Guns of roston
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:48:38 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 65

> From: [e-mail] (Tad Dowe)
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

> You said that you might be "dim" but I disagree. I think that you are
> just dishonest intellectually.

Sure I'm dishonest intellectually:  Just ask the people in the FidoNet
UFO echo.  There, I've occasionally owned up to being a paid government
disinformation agent, working to discredit hard-working UFOlogists
because they're getting too close to secrets of earthshaking importance
that must be protected.  I've also admitted to causing the wrecks of the
Titanic and the Hindenberg, and to basically being an evil and depraved
little chap who never speaks up except when doing so out of the lowest
of motives.

'Fessing up like this, conceding a fundamentally stupid debating point,
allows the flat-out ad hominem diversions, emanating from those with no
manners or self-control, to be set aside in favour of actual issues.

> You are prejudiced against gun ownership and choose to ignore facts
> and evidence which are contrary to your biased position. It is
> specious to claim that 17 year olds *don't* constitute a "well
> regulated militia." This sort of strawman argument is not the typical
> work of someone who is "dim," but rather one used by a propagandist
> intent on obfuscating the real issue(s).

Much as I hate to interrupt a good rant, I'd like to add two points:
(1) The prior discussion did not concern guns, but rather arms, and
I was quite clear and specific on that point.  It would make equally
much sense (a value equal to zero -- see point #2) to allege that I
am irretrievably prejudiced against grenade or knife ownership.  (2)
As Gerry will confirm, I am in fact an advocate of the right to own
guns.  I merely maintain that the allegation about the U.S. Second
Amendment is erroneous.

Perhaps you have by now seen the posting from my attorney friend, Terry
Preston, analysing Thomas Carter's prior citations of case law.  I
recommend it to you.  (Thomas's reference to the "Dred Scott"
slave-ownership decision was quite riotously funny, but I wanted to pass
it and the others past a good legal analyst, just in case.)

I assume we'll be seeing more of this National Rifle Association
hue-and-cry as off-topic posts in sundry newsgroups well into the start
of the Clinton administration, since it all seems to be related to the
Brady Bill.  I should explain for the benefit of non-USA readers:  U.S.
Press Secretary James Brady stopped a bullet intended to kill
then-President Ronald Reagan, getting in the process a severe head
wound.  As soon as he recovered enough to speak and walk somewhat, he
helped launch in the U.S. Congress a bill to institute, nationwide, some
safeguards on the sale of firearms.  President Bush has blocked passage
of this bill because of his veto power.  President-elect Bill Clinton
has said he, by contrast, will sign it.

Thus, the weapons industry is now pulling out its -- um -- ammunition
on this issue. It tries first its standard slippery-slope fallacy (i.e.,
that regulation leads to banning), and when that fails in the face of
public recollection about James Brady, switches to claims about the
U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.  That seems to be why we are now
hearing all this stuff.

Cheers,
Rick M.
[e-mail]

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)