--- Steve Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The main change I'd make to the
> law is
> requiring the states to keep the same sort of
> information on
> gun owners that they do for drivers. Unfortunately,
> the more
> paranoid gun... uh... enthusiasts ;-)
Heheh. I'll bring up paranoia of the government later
when i feel like taking a beatin again.
...are
> convinced that
> if the government gets a list of all gun owners,
> they'll
> eventually turn totalitarian and use the list to
> round up
> all the guns.
Actually, Arizona has a law on the books that makes
the registration of gun owners illegal. Several other
states do too.
I don't understand what more is necessary - that form
I was referring to for every purchase is readily
accessible to law enforcement if they request it- the
gun itself is documented and is linked to your name.
>
> A law has to be written very carefully. If it's too
> vague,
> it's useless. If it's too specific, there is no room
> for
> interpretation, making the law too inflexible to
> last. The
> US Constitution manages to sit in the useful range
> in
> between those extremes, but it only got that way
> thanks to
> the nit-picking founding fathers who very carefully
> designed
> and wrote it.
>
Right, they wrote a pretty darn good document. My
point was that modern *practicing* lawyers (the
supreme court/the judiciary, including judges) are so
used to poring over facts and figures looking for what
they need to prove something for their ends, that they
cannot see the forest for the trees. Bring to the
forefront that which you need to make a point over and
minimize what harms your case (something that I am
above! <bg>). Taken as a whole, the 2nd fits just
great into the Bill of Rights and the Constitution- it
guarantees personal freedoms.
dean the typing machine
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
