Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:03:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
214 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> 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.
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 assuming
that he didn't know how a gun was to be treated since he left it loaded where a
6 year old could get to it.
> This ballistic fingerprint is, by their own admission, only effective if a
> crime has already been committed.
True, but it would help to bring the criminal to justice after the fact.
> 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.
What liberties are we losing? Please enlighten me.
>
> Bill
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) these (...) it? (...) a (...) of (...) the (...) on (...) killed (...) No need to be so smug. For one, we lose the liberty of choosing what to do with the additional money we are required to shell out - regardless of how small the amount. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
