Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Jul 2001 16:28:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
639 times
|
| |
|
|
The point I would like you to grasp, Larry, is that laws and rights about
handguns and automatic weapons are currently controlled, for the most part,
by the lobbyists and politicians in Washington D.C., not by the Joes and
Janes in Anytown, U.S.A.
The accepted approach is through your senator or rep but it never fails that
the movement stalls and fizzles when it reaches Washington and the endless
committees and sub-committees. And the lobbyists keep the politicians palms
well greased so that these teensy l'il gun control issues can slip by
easier. Is that the system you prefer for our laws about handguns and
automatic weapons?
You work out the technical details on my statements Larry and decide how YOU
think it would work better. I am saying that the accepted means of changing
the law is a joke. Let the people speak. If you're saying we have no vote on
the matter, then I'd be happy with a national poll. Either way, there must
be a means that allows every American to be heard on the matter so that our
laws reflect factual public opinion.
I never, ever said anything about rifles and shotguns. By all means, it
would be great if every American had one in the home as a last measure of
home defense. In the event of another American revolution, a rifle would be
a far more effective weapon on the battlefield than a pistol. I'm talking
about banning handguns and concealable automatic weapons (i.e. Uzi's,
Mac-10's, and other small machine guns) that are predominately used in crimes.
There is debate on large machine guns like the M-16 and AK-47. These are
assualt weapons, their purpose is to kill people and I know of few true
outdoorsmen who go hunting with these weapons. However, if there must be a
compromise on the issue (to satisfy the paranoia of revolt against the
government), the larger, hard-to-conceal automatics may stay but must be
registered and a full criminal background check must be made on each
potential owner, regardless of how many times the gun is bought or sold
(just like any motor vehicle).
Dan
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) Why would that be great? (...) We wouldn't have battle fields. We would have the ugliest guerilla war in history. And pistols would be awfully important because they're easier to conceal when you're approaching a small group of cops. (...) We (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) It's not the system I prefer for our laws about ANYTHING, Dan, and you know it, or you would if you were paying attention. So you can skip the soapbox parts about how bad the government is, because I'm already convinced our current system is (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) Still not being clear enough, I guess. The point you're failing to grasp is that the constitution would need to be amended before you could have a referendum that stuck. You can't just have a referendum on any old subject and have the outcome (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
