Subject:
|
Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:41:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
108 times
|
| |
|
|
I heard something on the news yesterday that puzzled me, and I hoped a few of
the more politically-savvy around here might help me to comprehend it. It
seems George Pataki of New York favors certain measures of gun regulation
including, among other things, mandatory trigger locks and ballistic
fingerprinting. I understand the more popular arguments against trigger locks,
(in that, if one can steal a gun, one can steal the gun's key), but the NRA has
voiced its opposition against ballistic fingerprinting, and that's what
confuses me.
It seems they object to it on the grounds that it would establish what they
call national gun registration. I suppose it would, but why would that be a
problem, exactly? I'm not trying to be inflammatory here; this actually seemed
like a good measure. I know that fingerprinting won't prevent a stolen gun
from being used in a crime, of course, but I feel that I'm failing to
comprehend something about the NRA's view here.
I don't often agree with the NRA, but in this case I'd at least like to try
to understand where they're coming from...
Thanks for listening,
Dave!
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| Dave!, (...) Ballastic fingerprinting? Well, I don't know what that is, so you need to tell me that first. I think before we need *ANY* more gun laws, we need to start enforcing the *22,000+* laws that are on the books, which, BTW, won't solve any (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) The reason for opposition of gun registry comes down to what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is presumed to be, that of assuring that the populace can be armed as a defence against an out of control government (an understanding which I agree (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Actually, this is one that I can't understand at all.... I can't figure out how ANYONE could object to mandatory trigger locks... How in the world would something like that impinge on your rights? Now, granted, it most likely would not do a (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) This is so typical of liberals: to impinge on the rights of all, supposedly for the protection of all. The problem is that laws are made to be efficacious only after they've been broken; and in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) locks, (...) has (...) seemed (...) To actually try and answer your question, the real reason the NRA opposes this is because they are afraid of being nibbled to death. A regulation here, a restriction there, a warning label that gets worse (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) locks, (...) has (...) seemed (...) Clinton was just on TV not 15 seconds ago (11:20PM EST) saying how we need these measures so that no more children need to die like that six year old girl. Look, I have a six year old son and a four year old (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 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
|
|
|
|
