| Message: | | I'd actually argue with almost every point you make.
I'm not opposed to stopping proper checks. Proper checks can be made instantly.
Terror watch list should NOT be an eliminator under the proposed bill (No right to recourse? Seriously? What ever happened to innocent-until-proven-guilty?). You get on a terror list by doing something that MAY or MAY NOT be a good reason - hell, we have congressmen on the list. If that is going to be used as a criteria, it needs to be ACCURATE and it needs to have recourse for being placed on the list and later denied. Nobody in their right mind would say that in America, either today or 200 years ago, an individual should have rights taken away without being charged with a crime and without their day in court.
Regarding a restraining order, I have two points. The first is that restraining orders are not alway well-issued either - the crazy person could just as well be the one doing the issuing. But, more importantly, if you feel threatened enough to take out a restraining order against someone wouldn't you also feel that the threat is serious enough to warrant purchase a gun to protect yourself? Who is the "cooling off period" helping then?
And, finally, the world is most definitely NOT the same place it was 200 years ago. It has higher violent crime rates, denser populations, and is generally a more dangerous society to live in.
However, I don't believe any of that affects the "tired second amendment" argument any more than the Internet and high speed printing presses affect the First.
 | |
© 1997 -
2009
Jump Internet Inc. All rights reserved.
