:In article <0096B294.AAD9C1E0@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu> reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu  
:> In article <1qkftjINNoij@cronkite.cisco.com>, pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano  
:> 
:> [stuff deleted about causes of people in ER]
:> 
:> >due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
:> >cars.
:> There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
:> regulation to try to combat this.  
:
:Such as?  Drunk drivers get back on the road in no time, to kill again.  Seems  
:the driver's license process does not work for this.
:
I can testify to this. My cousin spent a few weeks in the hospital, and his
friend was killed, because of a drunk driver.  The son-of-a-b**** is back on 
the streets... Officers from the scene are still p***ed about that one.

:> to take a drivers safety class.  
:
:Because you wanted one while you were underage.
:
:> I HAVE to be licensed to drive.  
:
:Only on public roads.
:
:> My car
:> MUST be registered.  
:
:Only if it is to be driven on public roads, other than between segments of my  
:property.
:
:> I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
:> insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
:> accident with it).  
:
:Only on public roads.
And this obviously doesn't always work, else why would they offer uninsured 
motorist coverage?
:
:> Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
:> of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
:> gun owners.
I object to mandatory registration because I don't trust my government not to
use any information I give them for their own purposes.  I am licensed to
carry a concealed pistol in my home state, but they never asked whether I 
actually owned a firearm.  A safety class before issuing a permit to carry is
reasonably, provided such classes are regularly available to the public.  Of
course, most places would consider my time in the reserves and on a competition
rifle team to count.  
:
:Perhaps, if it gave them permission to shoot in public roads and parks. :-)
Hey, now that's an idea :)
:
:> Paul Reimer
:
:Jim

Now, unless you have an agenda against private ownership of firearms, why would
you want to harass the person trying to legally defend themselves or exercise 
their rights? (I know, defending oneself/family/whoever IS a right... at least
as far as my 9mm and I are concerned... ) (Also as far as the State of Alabama
seems to be concerned)  Why don't you push for stricter prosecution of those
who use firearms in the commission of a crime?  I've already pointed out how
we aren't nailing DUI's hard enough...  Comparing the US with other countries
seldom works, but the European attitude towards alchohol and DUI seems to work..
Their attitude towards weapons isn't really a valid comparison because they've
historically done their best to keep the populace disarmed and submissive,
while our country was founded by a bunch of rugged individualists who told the
European monarchies (for the most part) to take a flying leap (used more polite
language though).  We even weaseled out of our first international treaty, and
then convinced the French that it was in their best interests not to complain..
But first we had to overcome the fact that the Brits were doing their best to 
restrict us to squirrel guns and such, so we'd be properly submissive while
they forced us to pay for their wars.  Of course, most American history classes
these days tend to gloss over facts that do not fit the image they wish to 
convey... I'm glad my Amer. Hist. teacher was a Libertarian who had us review
a good portion of the Federalist Papers, and debate their origins and meanings.

enough rambling,

James

