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 : 2000:The Make-or-Break Election -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (95)	6/6/2000 8:39:00 PM
From: haqihana	Respond to of 1013

Mad Dog, It is, already, the law that concealed guns must be permitted, that gun purchases cannot be made, legally, without a background check, and there are laws, in place regarding the safety of certain institutions, such as Columbine. There are also limitations on the types of weapons one can own, such as artillery pieces, atomic devices, etc., so there are no new laws needed, just the enforcement of those already on the books. The Congress can pass any law they want, and clinton or gore, can make any Executive Order, they can get away with, and it will not change the fact that criminals do not use legal guns to commit illegal crimes, in most cases. In the case of the demented teens in Columbine, they would have used the bombs, machetes, or baseball bats if they could not have gained possession of guns. It has been said before, but bears saying again. A gun is a few metal parts assembled together that cannot function, in any manner, unless a human hand picks it up, loads it, and pulls the trigger. Guns are NOT, the problem. The attitudes of certain people in these times are the problem. ~H~

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (95)	6/6/2000 9:10:00 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1013

Registration does lead to confiscation was my point. "Assault weapons" are merely standard issue for armed forces, though somewhat toned down (semi-automatic not select fire FA). If you wished to defend yourself against a tyrannical government, I would think it prudent to have one. If you cannot conceive of a tyrannical government, then all the rhetoric is wasted both on my part and yours. Why does the government need to know what guns I have? Does the government say you can have a car? Well it does not forbid it. I think you can, but I can't find it written anywhere. However, I can find where they say I have a right to bear arms that can't be infringed. How does the government's wanting to know what I have not infringe? You seem to think you must answer any question government asks, I don't. Reasonable safety-based regulations that don't infringe are what? Individual responsibility should take care of this issue. Are you quizzed on the issues before you vote to show you understand them? Are you assessed for competency and assets to have children? And no, statistics do not show that more people are killed accidentally by guns in the home than are saved by the use of firearms. Estimates range from a low of 80,000 defensive uses to 760,000 to 3.6 million (various surveys and methodology). Of 1400 accidental firearm deaths in 1995, 30 involved children up to four and 170 more deaths involved 5-14 year olds, while 2900 died in car accidents 950 drowned, and 1000 died from fire and burns and no consolation intended, but more kids die from bicycle accidents than gun accidents. Statistics also show that nearly 100,000 deaths result from legal drugs incorrectly prescribed or administered. They also show police kill as many as 330 innocent individuals annually. The Constitution left the matters of slavery and voting to the states. Though the Founders felt slavery was anathema, it was a present economic fact of life. States could determine citizenship and thus voting rights. We now have suffrage for women and emancipation for slaves and I would simply argue that these are "rights" added and for good reasons. Rights subtracted (like Prohibition) for no good reasons are repugnant to freedom and are thus overturned. Your telling me you didn't have a drink from 1920 till 1933;) The only inalienable rights expressed in the Constitution were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There may be more that were intended but there is no record. Certainly there was no record of drinking being an "inalienable" right. If the 2nd says Congress can make no law to infringe it, I'm uncertain how an amendment to eviscerate would not be considered a law. You could buy a 20mm cannon (anti-tank anti-aircraft) before the 1934 NFA as well as full automatic weapons. The NFA exacted a confiscatory tax on these types of weapons. $200 tax on a $20 shotgun or $5 silencer. $200 tax on a machine gun costing under $100. Thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of these were brought home by soldiers as spoils of war from Europe. These and hand grenades never figured very highly in crime statistics (with the exception of tommy guns in Prohibition), and unless you have some references I don't consider them a problem. Pointing a gun (artillery in my front yard, pointed at your house) would be a threat. You should never point a gun to threaten, unless your life is in immediate danger, it's against the law. Could you afford nuclear arms? Well they make sense on a global scale, but for civil wars they would be problematic. You would think the government would encourage education and gun-safety by programs, or endorsement of private enterprise in this area. No, instead we get laws that try to demonize guns, that insist that flash-hiders, silencers (required in Sweden for hunting and target shooting) hi-capacity magazines and pistol grips that protrude beneath the action are somehow "evil" (i.e.military). It's a mistake as sure as Prohibition.

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (95)	6/7/2000 9:33:00 AM
From: Fangorn	Respond to of 1013

OMD, Understand this? newsmax.com Wednesday June 7, 2000 12:55 AM EST Australian Gun Ban Results: Deadly! Just over a year ago, Australia followed in the footsteps of mother country Great Britain and made law a total ban on hand guns. The gun ban and confiscation program cost the Australian government more than $500 million. Sometimes using deadly force, authorities there collected 640,381 personal firearms. And now the results are in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent (in a country that has a low homicide rate). Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent). In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent. Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms - since the gun ban this has changed for the worse. There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults on the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." An e-mail circulating the Web reveals the harmful effects of the Australian gun ban, noting that "you won't see this data on the evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information." Another Australian offers a warning: "Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Take note, Californians and other Americans, before it's too late!"