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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (41578)	11/19/2005 10:42:21 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"The thing is, "What is an assault weapon?"" I agree the current terminology is fuzzy and incoherent. My point is not to support any specific State or regulation, but rather to oppose the idea that there is something sacrosanct about the 2nd. amendment which places gun owners and users beyond the reach of legislation which is in the public interest. As a rule, I hate to see individual freedoms shoved behind the "good of the collective". On the other hand, we live in a society where people interact in close quarters on a daily basis. Anything which threatens their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness must be examined very carefully to see if it is a permissible exception. Police have powers that other citizens do not have. They also have responsibilities and accountabilities peculiar to their duties. Police may carry weapons but they must strictly account for the weapon and how it is used. At least, in Canada--every shot fired by law enforcement must be rationalized. I don't say that every citizen should need to meet such rigid requirements...but to suggest that activities that require skills and are inherently dangerous (such as driving a car or firing guns) should be beyond examination as to appropriate regulation--well, that would be rather peculiar. The fact that different States have different gun laws shows that there are valid issues of concern and valid issues of disagreement between rational law makers.