-=> On 11-01-97  19:53, L. Gault did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Robert Craft concerning Re: Childproof firearms <=-
 
 LG> It is still my contention that government should never be
 LG> "looking out for our best interests" in any way but by
 LG> keeping the "other guy" from intruding on our rights.
 
 RC> I can see your point - but until all government property is
 RC> privatized - unlikely - the government, or some contracted
 RC> agent, has to administer that property in the interests of
 RC> the populace as a whole.
 LG> No problem with that concept at all. It's just that property
 LG> does not extend to *my* head.
I'll agree to that.
 RC> OTOH, if that personal choice makes it more likely the
 RC> citizen will require goverment assistance, does the
 RC> government not have an interest in that choice?
 
 LG> Not, IMO, if that assistance is not part of the
 LG> government's responsibility to begin with.
 
 RC> I'd like to get back to original intent, also, but, for
 RC> now, we have to deal with current circumstances.
 
 LG> Don't buy that at all, Robert. After all, our "current
 LG> circumstances" includes blatantly unconstitutional laws
 LG> regarding firearms ownership, freedom of political speech
 LG> issues, confiscatory taxes...etc...etc...  If something is
 LG> right, it is right. If something is wrong, it is wrong.
 LG> I'll leave the situational ethics to the democrats. 
When I say "we have to deal with current circumstances",
I'm not implying that the current circumstances are either
ideal or even desirable. We're rather like the guy that
proposed to his girlfriend on Dec 6, 1941. On Dec 7, 1941,
he had to "deal with current circumstances" when he would
have much rather gotten back to original intent. 
Getting back to original intent is going to take some time,
but for the immediate future while that's being done, we
have to handle measures under current circumstances. 
 LG> And is that not the precise argument that they are using in
 LG> the tobacco fiasco that is currently going on?
 
 RC> Except that 1) they were, and are, lying about the
 RC> requirement for government assistance and 2) they have
 RC> misused funds collected for rendering that assistance.
 
 LG> I don't for one second doubt that more government (read:
 LG> OUR) money is spent on the treatment of smoking related
 LG> health issues than is spent on helmetless motorcyclists.
 LG> Nor would that figure be evened out with a repeal of helmet
 LG> laws. The point of both arguments is the same.  The 
 LG> government has no business in regulating the life choices
 LG> of its citizens. That is left to a government which *has*
 LG> no citizens. Only subjects. 
OTOH, there is the quid pro quo: the prolonged and often
life-long care of the para/quadraplegic patient.
 LG> I also don't doubt your contention that non-smokers will
 LG> eventually cost more (health wise) than will smokers in the
 LG> short term. Accepting your premise that is fact, and
 LG> following the logic that government has the authority to
 LG> mandate behaviours that lead to lower public expendutures
 LG> (since they are in the business anyway), then smoking ought
 LG> to mandatory for every citizen of this country. 
ROTFLMAO! Don't suggest that to your attny-general.
 LG> Also in the vein of non-smokers' long term health care
 LG> burden on the rest of society, one must look at the
 LG> ramifications of helmetless motorcyle accident victims. It
 LG> is my contention that a (bare) headed victim from a
 LG> motorcycle wreck is much more likely to expire immediately
 LG> than to require long term care. 
Hmmm. Not sure about that. I'll have to see if there are
any studies available on this.
 LG> Sad, but his (or her) choice. Following the same studies
 LG> for costs of smokers vs.  non-smokers, one can project that
 LG> a helmetless motorcyclist will, in all probability, be a
 LG> *very* light burden on society. After all, even with the
 LG> high cost of real estate, the cost of 0.000413  acres pales
 LG> in comparison to the care of a motorcyclist who makes it to
 LG> the geriatric ward because he wore a helmet all of his
 LG> life. 
Again, I'm not sure that's a correct assumption at all.
 LG> We have accepted "personal security" and "what's good for
 LG> us" as standard excuses for curbs on our personal choice,
 LG> it seems to me.
 
 RC> Some seem to want to, yes, but only because the cost is
 RC> never explained.
 LG> The cost can be distilled down to only one, AFAIC. That is
 LG> loss of freedom. An unnacceptable cost, to me.
 LG> 
 LG> 
... HEALTH WARNING: Product weight depends on its velocity.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/5
---------------