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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (655)	5/8/2003 1:31:48 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793887

Yeah, if it's crap in the definition, then people are gonna be pissed. I'm a fairly strict Second Amendment guy, but I'm realistic. The pols gotta have some red meat to wave at people. Arguing that people should be allowed to have bullet sprayers while the other side is showing pictures of five year olds blown to hamburger in South Central LA just doesn't fly with the mainstream. Derek

To: LindyBill who wrote (655)	5/8/2003 5:49:36 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793887

if it has a bayonet mount, it qualifies. Or, if it looks like an M-16. More appearance than anything else. This is bad law, politically motivated, that you can't get rid of. In an attempt to discern the full impact of cyber-banning, this is a test message. All names used are fictitious. Any resemblance to a real situation is strictly coincidental. The use of any offensive language in this post is unintentional. The repeated use of the words gun and guns is not intended to inflame emotions. Full Disclosure Warning! This author is banned elsewhere. The 4 letter word (guns) you are about to read may not be appropriate for some men, women, and anti-Americans. Parents are responsible for their children. I agree. I believe folks with little gun knowledge are confused by this issue. They believe that this ban on assault rifles refers to M-16s, CAR 15s, and AK 47 type weapons and it does, but these guns also fire full automatic. With just minimum tweaking, the "semi-automatic" part of this bill could encompass a much broader range of guns. Folks who own semi-automatic hunting rifles (fire only one shot at a time, but hold more than one round and self load it) are concerned that proposed changes and the broad brush of the law will render their guns useless. And where does the law stop? Will this outlaw my semi-automatic 12 gauge shotgun just because it resembles a military shotgun? How about a semi-automatic 45 Cal pistol? They all look like the military version. The anti-gun crowd would like to ban these as well. Fortunately, we have a supreme court to keep order on this issue. I believe the reason this issue has become so complicated is that so many congressmen and US senators have not had military or other gun training. They do not understand gun nomenclature, function, or use. Yet, they happily jump on a gun bandwagon if they think it will get votes. anonymous