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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (142291)	2/4/2002 1:40:24 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578704

Terrorists in groups like Al-Qaeda have the resources to get guns even if the US totally banned them, hired a million new cops to enforce the ban and made possession of a gun by a private citizen a capital crime even on the first offense. On the other hand privately owned firearms have thwarted terrorist attacks particularly in Israel. So there can never be peace nor a cure for cancer? This one discusses why the ACLU does not believe gun control is violation of any constitutional right. At least they have a rationale. Even if it is a weak one as the constitution in general gives rights to individuals and "powers" to federal or state governments. Also every time the constitution talks about the people it is not referring to state governments and even if somehow the rights where limited to members of the militia, by federal law most men and some women are members of the militia. The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Ct's interpretation...that the authors of the Constitution meant "the right to bear arms" to mean a militia which was the US's standing army for a while. A militia is made up of individuals informally united but regulated as a military unit. That's not the NRA's argument at all. As for the ACLU and the Supreme Ct, their argument is not a weak one. In the meantime, the authors of the Constitution could not possibly have imagined how violent we have become and how pervasive guns are.....and that the NRA has such power. And this article discusses the entire issue but also points out that the NRA is virtually uncompromising in its stance and appears reluctant to consider even the least of the gun control measures. The only measures it talks about the NRA opposing are special restrictions on gun sales by private individuals at gun shows (currently there is no "gun show loophole" because the laws that apply at gun sales are the same laws that apply any where else), and the fighting of attempts to mandate use of safety locks which might be appropriate in some cases but which would prevent many self defense usage of guns. Then you missed the one where the NRA was opposed to safeties on guns since they feel that is "another attack on gunowners". The NRA is actually fighting safeties on guns........they don't care if some child accidentally shoots him/herself. ted