Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (52675)	6/10/1999 2:42:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

What's to be suspicious of? The NRA is very clear in their goal. They want to preserve citizen's Second amendment right to own guns. It's the Anti-NRA forces that are dishonest about their goal which I believe is nothing short of confiscating every gun in private hands. They won't come out and say this because they know public opinion is overwhelmingly against this today. Their strategy is to use every tragedy as an opportunity to pass ever more restrictive laws. Then (and this is the key part of the strategy ) they refuse to enforce these laws. Obviously, the new laws accomplish nothing so the next tragedy comes along and BAM! we need even more restrictive laws because "We have to do SOMETHING!!"

To: one_less who wrote (52675)	6/10/1999 4:25:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

brees my suspicion of the NRA is rooted in their prior behavior. All through the 80s simple laws like the Brady Bill just could not get passed. And initially they objected to legislation regarding semi-automatic weapons (this is when they first started showing up on the streets), and finally a tiny bit of capitulation from the NRA when law enforcement started being outgunned by citizen's firearms. The NRA has backed down pretty substantially I feel in the last 8 years since the public is unwilling to tolerate as much as before. Having said that, if their primary objective is truly enforcement of existing laws then I'm ok with that. But looking at these shenanigans with regard to the house treatment of the gun bill I find that hard to believe. If "enforcement" of existing laws is your thrust, then push for that. Instead they are creating yet more loopholes. (btw thats the entire problem with existing laws, loophole city). Anyway to really control guns and have a meaningful effect I think registration would do it. This is because if I had a gun and some criminal wanted to use it, I wouldn't let them have it for fear of being associated with said crime - now that would make a difference. Otoh background checks only stop the really stupid people - in fact last night on ABC they showed a felon and friend go to 20 gun shops and almost all let the friend buy the gun even when the friend told the salesperson "I can't buy it, I'm a felon, let my friend do it". But sheesh at least its something.