Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:36:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
143 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> 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...
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 with, unlikely as it seems that it would
ever occur (1)). The problem with gun registration is that then the
government knows where all the guns (supposedly) are when they decide to
start depriving us of our rights and start confiscating guns.
(1) Though there certainly are some recent situations which make one
wonder. I am certainly troubled by Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City.
Our government does need to change, but it is not so corrupt as to
justify blowing up a building, especially one with a daycare inside.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz answers: (...) Okay, that makes sense. My error was that I was perceiving an analogy between gun registration and, for instance, dog licensing or car registration. The difference, if I understand it now, is (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Rereading this, I'm not quite sure where I agree with your stated purpose of the 2nd (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) While I am convinced Janet Reno is a murderer, and I can easily and with a clear conscience condone firing back when I am fired upon first, by men hiding in a hiding place within my own compound, with no warning or prior notice (Waco and Ruby (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Trying to understand
|
| 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 (...) (24 years ago, 15-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
