Guns

[Pandora 77]

There's a thought. Here's another:

If we could have tighter security in problem areas, such as inner city banks, that would solve the problem too.

But I don't see that happening if people are going to continue to complain about tight airport security to keep us all from getting blown up.

[TheUnknown 39]

Re: Offense to Pod's Post

I saw nothing offensive about it. I think she was just commenting on dual federalism, which brings me to the second point.

Re: Dual Federalism

Issues like this are one reason I'm a unitarian. Since every state, every county, and every municipality make their own laws, you get a patchwork of standards that can be easily bypassed by crossing the state or county line. I think the federal government should set some minimum standards (such as bans on certain weapons, waiting periods, etc.)

Re: "Killers can still get them illegally"

Right, but like (I think) Chozen said, they can get them a hell of a lot easily if guns are sold legally. Also, like Pod said, how about increasing security at places like banks. And how about a) better funding our policy forces and b) police stop worrying so much about drug possession and curfews.

[Pandora 77]

I'm for less federal power. What does DC know about how people are getting illegal/controlled substances half way across the country?

[TheUnknown 39]

The point being that a person, with a criminal record and a history of mental instability, lives in state A, which requires background checks, waiting periods and gun safety classes can easily go fifty miles across the border into state B, which has basically no gun control laws, and buy a gun for the purpose of committing a crime. That's why we need federal laws.

[Pandora 77]

Granted, there needs to be a BASIS from the governemnt, but states should have the oppertunity to opt out. The federal government does not need that kind of massive control over daily lives.

[TheUnknown 39]

states should have the oppertunity to opt out.

Absolutely not. Allowing the states to opt out will do nothing but perpetuate the gaps in the laws that exist because some states/counties/municipalities refuse to toughen standards.

[Pandora 77]

No, that is just simply too much federal control. Wars and mail, Unknown. wars and mail.

[TheUnknown 39]

The point being it is necessary and proper. And a federal law saying that to buy a gun, one should have to pass a background check and wait a week to pick it up, no matter where in the country they buy it, is hardly a huge, crippling seizure of power.

Edited June 21, 2004 by TheUnknown

[Pandora 77]

More power than I'd like to give the government, personally. I love America, and I love the current administration, but there are still people I don't want to give more power to.

[TheUnknown 39]

But you don't have a problem with the state of Tennessee saying the exact same thing? You said it was a good thing that Tennessee requires a permit because Memphis is so violent. But what good would Tennessee's law do if someone, say a gang member, can drive just a few miles south to Mississippi or a few miles west to Arkansas, which for the sake of argument we'll say do not require permits, and buy a gun, bring the gun back to Memphis and mow someone down?

[Bushy 0]

I think her point is the the federal government shouldn't regulate EVERYTHING, that some things are better left to the local governments...

[TheUnknown 39]

And my point is local laws are too easily bypassed. And that's of course IF there are any local laws.

[Princess 35]

I agree with Unknown

[chozen 1]

There's a thought. Here's another:

If we could have tighter security in problem areas, such as inner city banks, that would solve the problem too.

But I don't see that happening if people are going to continue to complain about tight airport security to keep us all from getting blown up.

Which costs a lot of money. And that wouldn't stop muggings and other forms of opportunist crimes, and in all honest would probably lower tha amount of deaths by guns a year.

I still believee that there is no need for light arms or heavy weaponry, ie. assault rifles/ automatic rifles.

[Bushy 0]

Automatic weapons are already banned.

And maybe, just maybe, if the Federal Government would spend their money more wisely, like Mr. Bush is trying to get them to do, we'd have more money for local security.

Wether you people realize it or not, the things Bush is doing to this economy are amazing. It may not seem like it, but he is. The ammount of jobs that are prejected to be created in the next few months is phenominal. It's the direct opposite of when Clinton was in office. It looked like he was doing great things for the economy, but all it was was a big bubble, ready to pop, and it was already deteriorating when Bush took office. It was only a matter of time before that bubble burst. Whoever inherits the presidency in November will be sitting on a literal goldmine...

Yeah. Off topic, sorta... Sue me.

[GI_Admiral 2]

First: Clinton was trying to get rid of our national debt not increase it to the most its ever been

Second: Sure Bush raised us out of a slump by starting a war AND the with no jobs. He's been trying to create jobs but none are going to work. He wastes money and crappy education programs and still schools have to cut down on everything. Bush has effectively screwed the economy over.

[Andy 60]

Yeah. Off topic, sorta... Sue me.

Yay!

*calls laywers*

Yes. ... Yes. ... Oh, you saw it did you? ... What? You mean I can't sue somebody for being off topic? ... Damn you!

[Bushy 0]

*does a lil dance*