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

To: ManyMoose who wrote (262037)	6/8/2002 1:54:13 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

I believe it is too dangerous to allow individuals to own certain weapons. We can probably agree on most: weapons of mass destruction, powerful weapons, etc. Where we differ is on more 'traditional, personal' weapons. I see too much violence being performed using hand guns. Not just the murders, suicides, and accidental deaths, but the crimes where guns are used. I simply see no purpose for hand guns except to either commit a crime, or attempt to protect against someone who has a gun. The first step in getting out of the cycle is to get rid of hand guns, and restrict other guns to 'solid citizens' who can prove they own the guns and have them in their possession. What I don't get is why the NRA opposes common sense measures at stopping the violence. In 1992, they opposed the California Assault Weapons ban. What possible use is an assault weapon to any law-abiding citizen? Why do they take these crazy stances? That's what I don't get.