I think anyone proposing legislation about anything without doing some analysis on the actual practical effects is under-thinking it. And the amount of analysis/thinking should be increased when the legislation deals with limiting freedoms that have until then been enjoyed. I know it seems like a trivial thing at first glance ("Not having a 30-round mag won't stop me from protecting my home/family"), but shouldn't those in power have concrete reasons for taking things away from the plebs like us, no matter what it is?We aren't plebs. We elected these guys. A vast amount of thinking has been done, both pro control and anti control. The issue is not being trivialized. Nobody is taking this issue lightly. It's being hotly contested.How exactly will that result in fewer murdered school children?Hopefully we will be able to effect better control of guns such that guys like Lanz, Whitman, etc will not have access to them. Look, regulations are not proposed for malicious reasons. We have serious problems that need to be addressed. Gun regulation / controlling needs updating. Consistency and equal application is all I'm looking for, is that crazy?Guns are a unique thing. I don't know that consistancy and equal application is desirable. Tromping around the hog hunting grounds of Texas with a rifle is different than tromping around a JC Penneys with a rifle.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra