12-27-2012, 02:14 PM
F.U.:
Regarding the article that you posted upthread:
It took a while to read, but it was indeed well worth it.
I've read and myself thought many of the points made in the article, but it was rare to see someone with that level of qualification and experience explaining the background information and using relevant data/comparisons to support logic in examining the question, "do guns protect or threaten the vast majority of US citizens?" (my interpretation of his intent; he didn't outright state it as such).
Typically, what I've read from hard-core pro-gun advocates comes across as skewing the data however needed to "win" an argument (same for the extreme on the other side). At least, I thought that the writer of the piece that you posted was coming from a place of clear reasoning and advocating for what he believes is the safest America. I have points of contention with two relatively minor assertions made in the article; I need to research and think about those more when I have time. Good read; thanks.
Jimbone:
Regarding Feinstein's draft proposal:
It's just that. I'm not gonna get all up in arms (corny pun) just yet.
There are a lot of pro-gun congress-persons sitting now. The NRA is a very powerful group with A-level lobbyists. The effectiveness reports from the Clinton-era ban speak for themselves and emotions on Capitol Hill will have cooled by the time the final bill is submitted. Plus, we haven't heard from anyone else on the multi-agency task force yet; not everyone is going to line-up behind Feinstein.
The most liberal and incomplete draft (what were seeing now) is not at all likely to be what ultimately becomes Federal law, imo. Even if did become Federal law as it stands, it doesn't mean that state law-making becomes null and void. JMO.
Regarding the article that you posted upthread:
It took a while to read, but it was indeed well worth it.
I've read and myself thought many of the points made in the article, but it was rare to see someone with that level of qualification and experience explaining the background information and using relevant data/comparisons to support logic in examining the question, "do guns protect or threaten the vast majority of US citizens?" (my interpretation of his intent; he didn't outright state it as such).
Typically, what I've read from hard-core pro-gun advocates comes across as skewing the data however needed to "win" an argument (same for the extreme on the other side). At least, I thought that the writer of the piece that you posted was coming from a place of clear reasoning and advocating for what he believes is the safest America. I have points of contention with two relatively minor assertions made in the article; I need to research and think about those more when I have time. Good read; thanks.
Jimbone:
Regarding Feinstein's draft proposal:
It's just that. I'm not gonna get all up in arms (corny pun) just yet.
There are a lot of pro-gun congress-persons sitting now. The NRA is a very powerful group with A-level lobbyists. The effectiveness reports from the Clinton-era ban speak for themselves and emotions on Capitol Hill will have cooled by the time the final bill is submitted. Plus, we haven't heard from anyone else on the multi-agency task force yet; not everyone is going to line-up behind Feinstein.
The most liberal and incomplete draft (what were seeing now) is not at all likely to be what ultimately becomes Federal law, imo. Even if did become Federal law as it stands, it doesn't mean that state law-making becomes null and void. JMO.