Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:37:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
197 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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!
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 daughter, I cannot
fully imagine the utter anguish this mother must be feeling, but none of these
measures would have prevented her daughter's death. The people who had that gun
wouldn't have followed the rules - the gun was stolen for crying out loud. This
ballistic fingerprint is, by their own admission, only effective if a crime has
already been committed. This is the kind of nonsense that frustrates so many.
And then some Congresswoman says that the NRA doesn't represent America, "we
do" speaking of herself and others on stage. Who does she think the members of
the NRA are? They're the same citizens she claims to represent.
We are all upset by the actions of such heartless killers, but this is not the
answer. The fact is that if more people had guns there would be less such
incidents - the numbers don't lie. Criminals are basically cowards and prey on
the weak. Too many restrictive laws will ensure that they are better armed than
the good guys. And before anyone says that that's what the police are for -
they too can only act after a crime is underway - many people have been killed
after calling 911 asking for help only to be told that they couldn't do
anything until a crime has been committed!
These touchy-feely pure emotion liberal arguments are totally void of commom
sense and/or logic. This is the problem of being ruled by emotions. Doing
something is not always better than doing nothing, especially when we
incrementally loose our liberties.
Bill
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) gun (...) If the gun had a trigger lock when the thief found it, would he have stolen it? He probably would have. It sure would have taken a lot more effort on his part to remove the lock and get the gun into working condition. I'm also (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
