Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Father Terrence who wrote (42057)	6/27/1999 4:30:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

1. Individual Americans have the right to bear arms. This is the clear intent of the Founding Fathers in many of the papers and articles they wrote outside of the Bill of Rights, and for excellent reasons. Really? Can you cite one court decision affirming this? Do you know how to diagram a sentence? For example, the one about the well-armed militia? A scant understanding of the threats to America at that time would help in understanding this concept. Also, the guns of the time were very inaccurate muskets, not particularly lethal. It is insane to me to argue that the Founding Fathers, coming back somehow now, would approve of 200 million handguns in this society, massacres in schools, and an incredible social pathology attached to the gun problem which makes our society an international laughing stock. As visionaries, I know they would do better. 2. Yes, a populace well-armed can stand off an army: look at Pakistani guerillas holding back the Russians, or the Viet Cong holding off the Americans, or other examples throughout history. A well-armed populace in jungle or mountainous terrain well-known to them but relatively unknown to an enemy can stand off an army for some period of time, particularly if the army is unwilling to use substantial force. The Russian army is a joke, and the Americans in Vietnam had their hands tied in using the kind of force needed to win because of an eroding political will back home. None of these factors would influence an American political force which had somehow managed to harness our own armed forces. 3. Pacifists rely on the goodwill of others to protect them. I am not a pacifist. I believe in military might as a deterrent force. That is very different from supporting the need of every American to have individual Uzis. In your support for guns, you totally overlook the pathology they create. What is freedom for, if there is no freedom to walk down the streets unassaulted? We have the world's highest rate of death by guns, per capita, so there is a significant social cost attached. 4. It is every individual's duty, ultimately, to be responsible for (and defend) their own property, including their life. Urban lifestyle is an illusion in the pocket of a greater illusion surrounded by reality. You are sounding like one of those survivalist militia types. Are you? Most Americans live in cities. All security is ultimately illusory, but urban reality is certainly no stranger on a day-to-day basis than a bunch of angry losers doing paramilitary exercises in the countryside, shooting abortion-clinic doctors and bombing Federal buildings in their spare time.