regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (03/12/85)
I sure hope nobody seriously takes up the "gun control discussions were done LAST year" attitude -- I 'n' past most everything else except that. Curious how the recent efforts to control pornography resemble many of the anti- and pro- gun control arguments. One group wants control on the basis of "safety" and the other group wants to maintain constitutional freedoms. Yeh, Yeh, before you jump down my throat -- most of the people want control or no-control for personal reasons that don't relate to the ISSUES much at all -- but the apparent basis for their argument, (and the actual basis for any legal or legislative change) is their stance on the conflicing freedoms of our Constitution. When does freedom of speech endanger others? When does the right to bear arms endanger others? What "reasonable controls" would be considered reasonable by all people all of the time, and what infringements can be made that do not compromise the intent of the amendments? I think we can mostly agree that a large per- centage of all people who hold opinions on these arguments believe that killing people and kiddie porn aren't a good idea for our society. The true argument is _method_ and how we deal with the dichotomy of reality versus our political ideals. I think it's facinating. If I can 'n' past media bias postings, I sure hope the rest of you can 'n' past gun control postings, and we'll both be happy. Adrienne Regard TTI, Santa Monica Opinions expressed are obviously my own. Nobody else wants 'em.
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (03/14/85)
> > I sure hope nobody seriously takes up the "gun control discussions were > done LAST year" attitude -- I 'n' past most everything else except that. > PLEASE don't start a gun control argument in net.women -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)