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 Argue -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (16)	3/13/2000 12:05:00 AM
From: Jane4IceCream	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 415

Wow... Thats over my head. Philosofically (sp?) speaking (no pun intended, Phil) I am very materialistic. Jane

To: Solon who wrote (16)	3/13/2000 12:22:00 AM
From: dacoola	Respond to of 415

am writing to express my concerns about Solon and, more specifically, his claims regarding hidebound heavy metal fans. I want to share this with you because the primary weapons of Solon's repugnant cronies are lies and deception. Has he ever considered what would happen if a small fraction of his time spent trying to promote a culture of dependency and failure was instead spent on something productive? It's my hunch that I find that ungrateful swaggerers are no different from callow bourgeoisie. You may make the comment, "What does this have to do with unscrupulous flakes?" Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that Solon's press releases are not modeled on democracy as envisaged by philosophers of the Enlightenment, but on the anti-democratic principles of hooliganism.

To: Solon who wrote (16)	3/13/2000 12:22:00 AM
From: Phil(bullrider)	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 415

Solon, The level of eloquence in your post is far over my redneck head, so I simply must say, Well said, Have fun, Phil

To: Solon who wrote (16)	3/13/2000 9:29:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 415

It is one thing to leave a loaded gun where it is in easy reach of children. That's just plain dumb in anybody's book. But it is an entirely different thing to restrict and ultimately forbid the ownership and carry of guns. Who stands to gain here? Society? Depends on how one defines society. (It is not a definition I would embrace, because it contains a shift of primacy from the citizen to the collective.) We have a Constitution in which the framers spelled out the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. (And as far as I know this makes our Constitution unique among the major social codices in the world.) If we as a society decide that to be a Bad Idea, the place to start is by using the process to rewrite the Bill of Rights. But my fear is that if we remove a Constitutional right simply because it is unpopular, then the inhibitors that the Constitution presents to keep us from tyranny are all in jeopardy. After the Second is gone, a big incentive to uphold the First has been removed. As long as the government trusts the citizen to own and carry defensive weapons, of which the gun is by far the most effective and failsafe, I see that as a token of the primacy of the citizen. And that is imo the cornerstone of a healthy contract between the citizen and the state. The Government leaves me with the final right of revolution should the Gov't truly and egregiously break its social contract. By all means enforce the ample and comprehensive laws, local through Federal, forbidding stupid and/or nasty acts using firearms or any other deadly weapons. But don't blame the gun. Don't blame society. Just my $.02