jakdedert wrote:
> Joseph Crowe wrote:
>
>
>> Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them
>> We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation.
>> We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children
>> and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have
>> acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the
>> NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people
>> are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to
>> keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.
>> Source:
www.hillary2000.org, “Gun Safety” Sep 9, 2000
>>
> You support gun possession by children, criminals and mentally
> unbalanced persons....?
The problem is that the gun control laws proposed for that
purpose rarely (if ever) stop at doing just that.
Several years ago, I got into an online debate on the issue
of triggerlocks. That debate progressed from the other side
stating that all gun owners should be required to keep
triggerlocks on each gun, to all gun owners should be required
to keep all their guns in gunsafes (their belief that a
triggerlock would prevent theft by criminals was carefully
explained to be false, and things went downhill from there).
After several manufacturers showed they could bypass the
assault weapon ban by deleting certain features, the gun
control supporters started claiming there was a loophole
and that the AWB needed to be more strict. The claimed
'extension' to the AWB included alterations to the definitions
of various features (new definitions that had little to do
with the common use of those terms) that created a new ban
that would cover pretty much *any* semiauto firearm that has
a removable magazine or that could use some form of speedloader
(ever check on how many different types of speedloaders there
are? they make them for rifles, shotguns, and even blackpowder
muzzleloaders).
Ya gotta read the fine print in the bill.
>> License and register all handgun sales
>> Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal
>> to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles
>> Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a
>> state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common
>> sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,”
>> Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer
>> should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”
>> Source:
CNN.com Jun 2, 2000
>>
> Gee...I believe everyone who owns a car (or at least drives one) should
> have a state-issued photo license. I'm not sure I see much difference.
> The gub-nuts often compare the relative lethality of one to the other.
> The difference to me is that a car has much more utility beyond it's
> potential lethality...indeed it's lethality is only incidental, as
> opposed to a gun; for which its lethality is its prime reason for being.
I owned and drove a car (a 72 VW) for a few years before I was
old enough to get a driver's license. The car was not
registered while I owned it, and was never titled to my parents
or myself. I broke no laws.
Licenses are for use on public roads. Use on private roads
or off-road does not require a driver's license or registration
of the vehicle. Comparing ownership of a firearm to a driver's
license is not a good comparison. The only comparison that
makes sense, is comparing a driver's license to a carry permit.
The gun control lobby compares gun ownership to registering
a car and having a driver's license, but has fought every
attempt to have states accept carry permits from other states
(as they do with driver's licenses from other states). Care
to explain the logic behind that position?
--
Paul Stevens
