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.

Politics : Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator from New York? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nuke44 who wrote (928)	8/11/1999 5:30:00 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3389

I really don't think that having pistols or shotguns will stop a dictator from using the military to control the nation. That's a fallacious argument. If President X appeared on TV tonight, and announced that the U.S. was now under a military dictatorship, what could average citizens, even armed average citizens, do about it? In today's day and age, the answer is probably nothing. It made a difference in Revolutionary times where most people had only small arms. Today, it's silly to say we need guns to protect ourselves from the Federal government's tanks, aircraft, and nuclear weapons. If the military turned on us (which is what you are positing), citizens armed with small arms wouldn't and couldn't mount much resistance(except for maybe guerrilla operations and isolated suicide missions). Now, you'd make more sense if you argued we should be allowed individually to own tanks, mortars, and Apache attack helicopters. Then we could all defend ourselves. I did not imply that Mr. Youngblood is a member of a hate group. I do not know Mr. Youngblood. All I was asserting was my suspicion that Mr. Youngblood would view possible FBI surveillance of hate groups differently if he were a member of a group that they target--such as Blacks, Jews and Asians. Perhaps he is a member of such a group, but nonetheless opposes such surveillance. That's a valid point of view. As a member of one of those three groups, I personally feel better knowing that the FBI might want to keep tabs on the "Let's kill all the ______s" websites. Hey, if I can go read them, why not the FBI? Frankly, I don't know of many crimes stopped by ordinary citizens with guns. Sure, I've read of it here and there. I hear of more uses by berserk postal workers, day traders, and whatnot. Since I do not believe that a personal arsenal would protect anyone in the the event of a military coup, I wonder whether this is a false issue--i.e., whether the NRA and such are brainwashing people into believing that small arms will protect them in the event of the establishment of a military dictatorship (they're dreaming if they really believe this).

To: nuke44 who wrote (928)	8/11/1999 6:23:00 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3389

I do agree, by the way, that there is some merit to the thought that armed citizens may personally be safer against criminals than unarmed citizens. I don't agree that crime rates have gone way up in areas where there is strict gun control. The strictest gun control laws in the country are probably in New York City, and murders are at a 30 year low, as are other violent crimes. It is true that gun crimes/violent crimes are at low rates in European countries that ban personal ownership of guns. How does that fit into the thinking that we are all safer with weak gun control? Or are Europeans and Americans just different types of people, so that the European experience doesn't translate. (Or, to put it another way: Why do I feel so much safer visiting Stockholm than visiting Los Angeles?).