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: Mr. Palau who wrote (262167)	6/8/2002 4:41:51 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 769667

Not absolute, I agree. There is plenty of evidence that Christians and Jews were generally accomodated in the laws. There are liable to be more conflicts with the practices and beliefs of other religions, including Islam, Hindu, and of course the fringe. I think one area that seems to be in play now is concealed carry. Although Vermont is mute and at one extreme and say CA is at the other where it is more nearly a political privilege, we have states leaning to "shall issue" under some restrictions of training, background checks etc., reasonable restrictions on this "right". So far this seems successful but we will never know for sure by statistics what this amounts to, (even as much as I admire John Lott) as much evidence, one way or the other, is not reported. I think the evidence of why early restrictions were attempted on firearms is indicative of prejudice and not public safety and these attempts were pretty much unsuccessful. Emerson upheld the opinion that a restriction on weapons for those under certain court orders was OK, but claimed unequivocally the 2nd was individual. We can certainly have a lot of dialogue about what is reasonable but I don't think public safety can be a winner without facts to back it up.