exsubmariner - 19 November 2006 02:05 PM
There are levels of gun control that are acceptable; I have to have a license to drive a car.
However, you don’t have a constitutional right to own or operate a car.
I have to have a commission to do my job, etc. These are every day requirements for most people and are required for non-deadly events, yet to many on the right scream about any gun control laws as if their fingernails were being pulled out.
It’s that pesky “Bill of Rights” or whatever…
There are good laws (waiting period, no criminal history for example).
The Thirteenth Amendment allows for the “no criminal history” part to be constitutional, but a waiting period?
How would you like a waiting period to use your other constitutional rights?
Yeah, we want to go to church but our permit won’t allow us to attend for 30 days...and oh, I wrote a letter to the editor. They’re filing a permit and it should show up in the paper sometime next month.
Just because the 2nd amendment (an amendment that I heartily applaud even if I no longer own a gun) allows us to own guns does not mean no restrictions, that is what the politcal process is for.
The problem is that placing restrictions on guns does nothing toward stopping crime.
More people die each year in automobile accidents but we don’t have a waiting period to buy one of them.
Rudy was for control of guns because he was trying to clean up a city with the worst crime in the country, of which gangers and their ilk were doing a lot of criminal activity.
Then maybe what he should have done was enforce the laws and stop allowing early releases to violent criminals.
His position was to make it harder for them to get guns and when they did get guns have a mechanism that would keep the guns from ending back on the street in thier hands.
Do you really believe that gun laws stop criminals from getting guns? Gun laws almost MANDATE that only criminals will have guns.
