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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (8764)	9/16/2007 9:33:34 AM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

As a fellow gun owner, your attitude worries me. A federal requirement for using gun locks? How about a national police force to enforce the gun lock requirement? I don't agree with the expensive and bureaucratic laws about ownership of fully auto guns, but since they're priced out of my reach, I can live with the existing rules. Just about anyone with $500 for the license can buy a machine gun, so it really isn't about restricting ownership as much as paying taxes for the enjoyment of such ownership. Same thing for so-called sawed off shotguns and silencers -- it isn't that you can't have them, it's that you have to pay a tax and go through bureaucratic hoops for legal ownership. It's clear to me that Rudy doesn't care much for the 2nd, and would sign any restrictive bill that happened to be currently popular. I could never support him for that reason.

To: JDN who wrote (8764)	9/16/2007 5:03:49 PM
From: Cage Rattler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Unfortunately, you are at odds with the intent of Second Amendment. Guns were intended to protect the citizens – particularly from their government at times of take over. History substantiates that foresightedness repeatedly. Your argument may sound reasonable -- trigger locks, automatic weapons (which may conveniently include semi-automatics and even look-alikes). So just where will you draw the line of unreasonable? Relinquishing any constitutional right is a very slippery slope. Where do you stop? How about the intended reclassification of ammunition as an explosive controlled by OSHA? You can play the gun-control game – that’s your choice; but it is not mine. It’s better to keep the gun loaded and within reach. As Gordon Liddy wrote, no one is unintentionally with a gun known to be loaded, or something like that. Education and training, in both the effective use of and firearm safety is quite reasonable. The more I hear about Rudy’s changing liberal rhetoric, the more I'm thinking it’s simply hypocritical verbiage of political convenience.