Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!topaz!josh From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Do those for gun control "hate guns"? Message-ID: <240@topaz.ARPA> Date: Sat, 12-Jan-85 21:41:16 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.240 Posted: Sat Jan 12 21:41:16 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 04:17:51 EST References: <> <265@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <2223@randvax.UUCP> <2228@randvax.UUCP> <636@whuxlm.UUCP> <> <> <292@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 61 > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes, replies: > In article <> josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) writes: > > The fact that the gun controllers' response is emotional is of considerable > > importance. This is why gun control is touted as a panacea--if they > > don't get it for one reason there are lots of other reasons they can > > trot out. In private conversations with such people it becomes > > immediately apparent that their basic motive is a dislike of guns. > > I have even had net correspondents admit it outright--perhaps Jeff Shallit > > is honest enough to do so here. > > World-class bullshit, but Jeff has made an adequate response and I would > just like to ask JoSH what his explanation is for the alleged fact that > advocates of handgun control hate guns. I can't imagine why anyone would > hate or even dislike guns--I love 'em, myself. Please re-read the very paragraph you quoted... I've had considerable personal contact with people of the gun-control persuasion, and many of them have declared outright their feelings on the subject. Mr. Shallit identified himself with HCI, a rabidly gun-hating (let's be precise, handgun-hating) organization. Given his unstinting efforts in support of their point of view, what else am I reasonably to conclude? > > For those who may be unaware, JoSH is the gentleman who "moderates" > fa.poli-sci by appending his own smartass comments to each article. > Thanks for the advertising-- I'm sure that the readership can form their own opinions of my remarks and don't need to borrow yours... > JoSH belongs to that unfortunate class of people who believe that their own > point of view is the only possible one for a decent and reasonable person to > hold ... No, I'm one of those people who objects when someone tries to deprive them of their basic rights. I don't giva a damn what you do so long as it doesn't affect me; but you and the other political "control" enthusiasts would like nothing better than to cram me and everybody else into your image of the good ("nice guys who carry guns aren't nice guys"). > One need only note how JoSH > attacks the motives of the advocates of handgun control in the above-quoted > article, ... where it's perfectly alright for you to attack mine? Come now; considering the vitriolic slander that you guys have been dumping on the NRA this should come as no surprise to you. *Every* attempt at a political power play covers itself with claims to righteousness and public good. The gun-haters are no exception. Shields' rhetoric is nothing new; Hitler gave similar reasons to confiscate privately owned guns in Germany in the 30's. And more 'public good' cant when he herded the now-defenseless people off to the gas chambers. > ... That doesn't deserve a reply. How clever of you to have given one anyway. --JoSH