IMO, there is a better chance we will now b/c of the sniper.  If a bill passes congress, which would be the tough part, George W. would sign it.

Well... considering Bush's statement today that he was against a ballistics fingerprinting system, I don't quite know how to answer your question.


[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=148892&w=activePop[/url]

[url]http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-wh/2002/oct/15/101504716.html[/url]

Remember what he said about Campaign Finance Reform when he was running for election?

Its going to be very hard for gun banners to do anything without a president to stump for them like Bill Clinton used to cheerlead for Brady.

After the election, key Democrats (Feinstein, Lautenberg, etc.) will all scramble to be the first to introduce a bill to create a national BF system.

Cooler heads will prevail in open debate.  Not one single credible technical expert will support it.  The bill will die a slow, painful death.

Democrats will say the Republicans are in the NRA's pocket, that the NRA wants to arm criminals, and that everybody but Democrats doesn't support common sense gun control.

Meanwhile, the DC area sniper will have taken out a couple dozen more people.  Pundits and parasites will keep saying "Hey, the sniper hasn't shot a yet"; each such statement followed closely by a person of that category getting killed.

[50]

The only way radical gun law controls would be ramrodded through next session would be if the DC sniper starts targeting elected officials within the beltway.

God help us all if he starts dropping Senators.

We all know that a "ballistic fingerprints" library would be utterly useless as all parts to be "fingerprinted" can be modified or interchanged legally at any time.  

Our problem will be if the antis figure this out, their only response will be to take away all the guns or to register the OWNERS.

food for thought.