Date sent: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 20:24:40 -0500 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Chuck Kuecker <email@example.com> Subject: Re: capicity for violence = less violence? [was Re: Security] Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> At 03:18 PM 6/1/99 -0400, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >A friend of my father and me is the VP of Sturm Ruger, Inc. His uncle has a
> >collection of 25,000 guns (really). My friend is the sole beneficiary of this
> >man's Will. How do you propose that my friend can inherit this collection
> >legally, even though not one has ever been used in a crime, nor has my friend
> >ever commited a crime, and the collection is kept in a sub-basement of a
> >that has a bank-style combination lock vault door on it???
> Obviously, this is not a case of someone walking into a gun shop and
> ordering 25,000 pistols or rifles. The law, if any, should be so written as
> to allow SOME common sense to be used in its' enforcement.
> Yeah, I know, dream on. Personally, I don't want anyone telling me how to
> spend my money. The insidious thing about all this gun regulation talk is
> that it starts to make some views sound palatable on first hearing, until
> someone else points out a fallacy. It is easy to assume the worst when
> presented with a scenario like multiple gun purchases. I imagine that the
> spin doctors do this on purpose to warp more people into their way of
> Chuck Kuecker
Spin doctors on every side of an issue do as much, as Mike is doing now. An exception could be written in for inheritance; it seems a simple enough matter. I doubt if too many gun sellers would be willing to go to the point of dying for volume business (not much personal profit in that).