rcing, high velocity, and ‘cop killers’. Ralph Nader has been advocating tougher laws against gun wielding criminals, stating in accord with Bush that the problem isn’t with the law-abiding citizens that purchase guns. So we shouldn’t make it harder for them. The point where Bush and Nader differ with Gore is precisely that. Gore would make mandatory registration with the government of all guns, and heavy state and federal government overseeing of gun sales. Bush and Nader do not to encroach on the rights of citizens with respect to bearing arms. Instead they are more in favor ‘very strict’ sentences, because only criminals should be affected by legislation not sportsman and people wishing to use guns for self defense.Social security, without a doubt, the most successful, and, the noblest government programs. To ensure dignity and financial security of our aged, and disabled citizens is a responsibility that has been our good fortune to actualize. However with a growing geriatric population, benefits for poor families and disabled persons, it is time for reform of our system before it goes bankrupt. Ralph Nader is the only one saying that the fears are unfounded, of not being able to meet the needs of the eligible. He agrees with Bush that working people should have a reasonable measure of control over their retirement assets. However he limits it to pension funds and retirements accounts and not to the fraction of social security money that Bush would advance to privatize. Bush’s idea has raised a many an objection to the idea of allowing individuals to invest part(1/6) of their contributions in the private sector, namely the stocks market. Gore and Nader are very vocal in opposing Bush’s plan, stating that it would replace security with insecurity. There is to much uncertainty in the market to allow the populace to put money that the government would eventually be forced to ...
