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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (10956)	9/23/1998 7:22:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Respond to of 74651

<<<OT>>> I'm only catching up since you've moved the discussion(s) over here, and I read: "I can't see any form of gun registration being required in the foreseeable future. For current and future sales, I think it's already here in many places. The system leaks across state lines, though. On the federal level, as I understand it for a handgun, you fill out the forms, there is a waiting period, the licensed "seller" gets the authorization and then records the sale, including the serial number of the firearm. Those records are required by law and are subject to inspection at any time by law enforcement officials. I do agree that there is no practical control over the sales of firearms among individuals. Also, the trend, until very recently with some concealed-carry laws, has been to strengthen firearms ownership regulation. There are far fewer registered "dealers" since they tightened up the qualifications, and we have that waiting period now. JMO Mr. K.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (10956)	9/23/1998 7:25:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Respond to of 74651

OT easily traceable. I will concede that not requiring private sellers to report the selling of a firearm (a firearms dealer must maintain the Yellow Forms for 20 years) hinders traceability if you will concede that such a database would allow easier confiscation. In a report I read once but cannot find so I can't post it here it was reported that a large majority of firearms used in crimes were obtained illegally. Stolen guns are untraceable so the traceability database would be of limited usefulness. Even with if all firearms were traceable, however, my philosophy leads me to assert that the potential risk of confiscation of the 99.9%+ of all firearms that are not used illegally each year outweighs the potential good of a traceability database. And, on the usual slippery slope argument of registration sooner or later leads to confiscation, does anybody seriously see that happening? Given the historical trend of gun laws to be progressively weakened rather than strengthened after some high profile incident leads to some weak law being passed, how is this going to come about? What historical trend are you talking about? Are you saying that the Brady Law and ban on ugly black guns are a weakening of gun laws? We had almost no gun laws at the federal level before 1968. Hell, you could even buy a firearm by direct mail-order before then. Ask the British and the Australians if registration leads to confiscation. From what I've happened to read (I've not gone out of my way to find stories on this) the Australian government and elites are upset that so many people are taking advantage of the one loop-hole in their new confiscation law and joining gun clubs so they can keep their guns that they're hinting at changing that. In Britain it's extremely difficult to possess anything more then a single-shot shotgun. Most other firearms have to be turned in to the government or "demilled", meaning being rendered permanently incapable of firing and made into a display piece. I think that .22 rim fire is excluded. Here's a really good examination of the Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson that was published in the 1989 Yale Law Journal. Levinson is an ACLU member and Constitutional expert and Law Chair at the University of Texas mac1.gov.utexas.edu and wrote "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" 2ndlawlib.org as an examination of how "our (ACLU)" view might be wrong. His main area of interest is American Political Thought for the period 1630-1870.