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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (21330)	6/17/2006 3:50:02 PM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 541463

I hoped others would pick up on the Ignatius article, but since they didn't, I feel obliged to comment. Gravity remover has been dusted over the National Rifle Association, too. The fearsome NRA launched a nationwide campaign last month demanding that every mayor and police chief in America sign a pledge that they won't disarm "law-abiding citizens" in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. The NRA is also proposing federal legislation that would make it a crime for cops to disarm lawfully gun-toting citizens during emergencies. Even by NRA standards, this is a bad idea -- not just divisive but downright dangerous. Does the gun lobby really want to remake America in the image of Iraq? The proposal was apparently motivated by the lawlessness in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, but if there aren't enough cops to patrol the streets, then hire more cops. When individual citizens, even "law-abiding" ones, decide to go it alone, the result is anarchy. "Fearsome NRA?" I suppose the gun-grabbers might find the NRA "fearsome," but only because they fear a populace able to defend itself, and able to be as self-reliant as the founders intended. To my way of thinking, the New Orleans cops perpetrated a worse crime by confiscating guns from law-abiding residents than all the thieves and hooligans could possibly have done. Forcing a citizen to huddle in fear in a lawless situation is the height of governmental abuse. "Get more cops," says Ignatius. Yeah, right. Hell, they couldn't even find bus drivers in flooded New Orleans, and he wants them to hire more cops? Where were those good self-reliant citizens supposed to find the cops to hire? In the ranks of the gangs who were looting and pillaging? I'm of the opinion that police forces would be better off deputizing gun owners than taking their guns away. The article did one good thing, though -- it motivates me to write my Congressman to co-sponsor the NRA bill.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (21330)	6/19/2006 1:47:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541463

A week ago Senate conservatives tried to whip up a divisive dither about gay marriage. This wedge issue had worked brilliantly for the GOP in 2004, but this time the campaign fizzled after a few days. Perhaps credit is due to the vice president's gutsy lesbian daughter, Mary Cheney, who is on a tour promoting her book celebrating diversity, tolerance and her gay-rights-supporting dad. I'd say its mostly due to reluctance to amend the constitution, and the feeling that the issue should be decided at the state level. A majority of people in the majority of states doesn't want "gay marriage", but a number of the anti-gay marriage group are want such issues to be decided by the states. The fearsome NRA "Fearsome" isn't really a reasonable word to describe a group like the NRA IMO. Or if it is fearsome than a number of other political lobbies are as well. If a person or group is going to physically hurt you, kill you, imprison you etc. or at least gives people a somewhat reasonable fear that they might do such a thing than I could say they are fearsome, but using it to describe a political group the writer doesn't like is spinning things to make your political opponents seem more sinister. The fearsome NRA launched a nationwide campaign last month demanding that every mayor and police chief in America sign a pledge that they won't disarm "law-abiding citizens" in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. The issue is not that no law-abiding citizens would be disarmed under any circumstances. At a specific point in might be reasonable, but disarming a city or a region generally isn't. And calling it a case where we would "remake America in the image of Iraq" is extreme hyperbole, I'd also call it dishonest except that is possible that David Ignatius actually believes it. When individual citizens, even "law-abiding" ones, decide to go it alone, the result is anarchy. When individual citizens decide to protect themselves and others the result is often better than if they did not make that decision. What you had in New Orleans was for a time very near anarchy but not because of legally owned guns. Its precisely at the moments when the police can not do anything for you when there is the most need for privately owned guns. I don't anticipate such a need in Fairfax County VA, but if I did I would buy a gun.