SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ThirdEye who wrote (209171)12/12/2001 3:15:51 PM
From: goldworldnet  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Most background checks are made for citizens and lists should not be made. Although I am firmly behind 2nd Amendment rights for citizens, I see no reason that non-citizens deserve the same privilege. To own guns, I think they should first swear allegiance to the United States and become citizens.

* * *



To: ThirdEye who wrote (209171)12/12/2001 3:18:56 PM
From: Srexley  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
"Ashcroft doesn't seem to have a problem with invading their privacy when they speak to their attorneys"

He laid out specific guidelines to when and where this would be done. I thought it sounded reasonable and prudent when faced with the fact that the Al Quida manual specifically stressed the importance of terrorists communicating with their counterparts via this method. The protection in place are that both attorney and client are told they will be listened too, the people listening have NOTHING to do with the prosecution, and the material cannot be provided in any way shape or form to the prosecution.

That said, do you agree or disagree with this policy? I would like to get your reaction to this before exploring whether the gun list privacy issue is legit. I view them as being different and distinct issues. Your "Which is it, dude?" comment leads me to believe you feel they are connected and that you can't have one without the other.