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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (15578)	10/17/2002 1:00:28 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93284

You people are awfully quick to recommend infringing on the constitutionally protected rights of others. It's amazing how indignant you get when some whacko provokes unusual, albeit constitutional, measures. I don't think that's what they're questioning. Bearshark is questioning whether there was actually a request from the locals for assistance. When an Administration lies repeatedly, as this one has, people begin to question every statement, every position. jttmab

To: ManyMoose who wrote (15578)	10/17/2002 1:59:28 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, October 17, 2002; Page A11 The White House retreated yesterday from its criticism of a technology that helps authorities trace ammunition found at crime scenes. Now, the administration will study the possibility of a national database to record the unique markings made by guns when they are fired. "The president wants this issue explored," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "There are reasons that people think that it could possibly move forward and other reasons that people think it may not be able to move forward." The overnight change reflected the new complications that the elusive sniper in the Washington suburbs has introduced to the gun-control debate with an election three weeks away. Democrats had been playing down the issue because it hurt Vice President Al Gore in rural areas in the 2000 election. But political consultants said Bush risked alienating suburban swing voters by echoing the National Rifle Association's opposition to the technology at such a sensitive time. The technology, known as ballistic fingerprinting or "gun DNA," is widely supported by law enforcement and is promoted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is part of the Treasury Department. The ATF has a Web site devoted to encouraging local agencies to use the technology, including a "Hits of the Week" compendium of success stories. Maryland has a registry of the unique markings on handguns that have been sold for the past two years, and some Democrats are promoting the idea of a national database. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) reintroduced such a measure last week, saying it could have helped police catch the sniper. On Tuesday, Fleischer was so critical of the technology at two consecutive briefings that a television correspondent told him he sounded like a defense attorney. Fleischer said then that Bush was not opposed, but he pointed to "a variety of technical issues involving the reliability and the accuracy of that program that bear looking into, and those issues will be explored." Fleischer also said a database could infringe on the privacy of law-abiding gun owners and compared the idea to building a database of human fingerprints in order to catch robbers and thieves.... washingtonpost.com

To: ManyMoose who wrote (15578)	10/17/2002 2:14:33 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

RICHMOND, Oct. 16 -- Northern Virginia lawmakers invoked the sniper attacks today in proposing firearm restrictions at local and state government buildings, but were rebuffed by rural and Republican colleagues who oppose new gun controls. The Militia and Police Committee of the House of Delegates voted by wide margins to defeat a proposal by Del. James F. Almand (D-Arlington) to ban all guns except police weapons in the state Capitol and General Assembly office building in Richmond, which have several heavily used public hearing rooms. Almand's proposal would have banned even those guns for which the owner had obtained a concealed weapons permit, he said....... .....The House panel also defeated a proposal by Del. James M. Scott (D-Fairfax) to bar handguns from the chambers of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, which favored the restriction. ......Philip A. Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc., told the House committee that Scott's proposal would impose unnecessary restrictions on those with legal permits to carry firearms. "We don't see there's any need to restrict law-abiding citizens from bringing protection into these meetings," said Van Cleave of suburban Richmond..... washingtonpost.com Help me understand this one. The proposed legislation would ban guns only in the state Capitol and General Assembly office building in Richmond and from the chambers of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Do people really think they need "protection" in meetings in the State Capital, General Assembly and chambers of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Why shouldn't we allow people with gun permits to carry guns on commercial airplanes? .... Just reflecting on prior news items, it seems there is a greater need for protection on airplanes then there is in Virginia's State Capital building. Is there any reason to believe at the moment that the sniper doesn't have [or couldn't get] a concealed weapons permit? jttmab

To: ManyMoose who wrote (15578)	10/17/2002 5:45:10 AM
From: bearshark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

There is a correct way to do everything. Convenience is not a reason to change the constitution.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (15578)	10/17/2002 12:06:07 PM
From: bearshark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

You people are awfully quick to recommend infringing on the constitutionally protected rights of others. It's amazing how indignant you get when some whacko provokes unusual, albeit constitutional, measures. My note this morning was too brief. I do not understand the part of your note that I provide above. Perhaps the note of mine that you responded to was not clear. I have no problem with the federal government providing surveillance assistance to the states of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia. I welcome it. However, the shootings around Washington D. C. are considered to be a local issue at this point. For that reason, I believe that the governors of the two states and the Mayor of the District should first specifically request the assistance. They might have done that. However, I did not see it. The articles I read said the federal government, represented by the FBI, asked the federal government, represented by the Department of Defense, for assistance. I do not believe that unilateral action by the federal government in a local issue is appropriate. If you prefer the federal government to dictate to the state of Alaska on local issues, then we are in disagreement.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (15578)	10/17/2002 12:58:33 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Where does it stop, Dave? There were a dozen killed by the Zodiac killers in California a while back, and the US government didn't step in with military assistance without asking the state. Do you approve of unilateral federal authority in overturning Posse Comitatus?