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 : The 2nd Amendment-- The Facts........ -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Street who wrote (1047)	4/17/2000 2:27:00 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 10167

Michelle Malkin, syndicated columnist has a piece on Patriot's Day in newspapers. In part... "Two centuries after the minutemen used their guns to oppose tyranny, Massachusetts clamped trigger locks on two muskets from Lexington and Concord that hang in the state Senate chamber."

To: The Street who wrote (1047)	4/19/2000 11:40:00 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10167

Look at the associations of these people. They're all liars, every last one. They lie about guns, they lie about the environment, they lie about Microsoft, they lie about animals, they lie about sex, they lie about politics, they lie about guns, they lie about the economy, they lie about money, they lie about the military, they lie about honor, they lie about what they inhale, they lie about the truth, they lie about the law, they lie about lies, they lie about guns. They know each other and they learn how to lie from each other. They're liars. Pure and simple.

To: The Street who wrote (1047)	4/27/2000 12:56:00 PM
From: PJ Strifas	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10167

I'm really not into sides - in most debates, each side takes liberties with data to re-affirm their values. That's normal, we all do it every day in our lives. What alarms me is we're talking about guns. Guns are devices developed to cause serious damage to others to reasons of defense. I think we need to be more responsible here than merely talking rhetoric :) I understand the point of view that it's an inalienable right to "carry" weapons for self-preservation. As a victim of violence and crime, I think we should all have that choice. I choose not to own and I love the idea of having that choice. But I have this dilemma... I am alarmed by the aggressive nature of some people who own guns (this if from personal experience not the media or some sensational story). That statement may be purely subjective and most gun advocates will undoubtly want to argue this. If you feel the need to, go ahead. Until I see a change in the people I've observed to determine this point of view, you can't sway me. There are people I know and/or met who SHOULD NOT own a gun PERIOD. In my mind, they are an accident waiting to happen. Why do I say this? Because they have exhibited behaviors which I think are unnecessarily dangerous with a gun. Now this should in no way be see as a blanket statement to reflect on ALL gun owners. I know quite a few people who are VERY responsible and I consider "role models" for gun owners which is perhaps why I have such a strong opinion on those people who are not responsible. I don't care if it's a few people here and there who act in this way or if some people think it's a stereotyping. All it takes is one fool behind a trigger to spoil the party for everyone, right? So what do we do about this person? What safety measures can be developed to protect us from this person? What guidelines? (I am not asking to predict the future but deal with the present -- more later on this) I do not believe a complete ban on guns is the answer but come on folks, there must be some solution that will protect us from people who can not be responsible with a weapon. Sure, it's not possible to predict the future but we can monitor the present. There must be some guidelines which explain the process to remove any possibility of misuse brought on by conduct (either verbal or physical). I do not think this should be a government function either. Why can we not have a gun safetly advocacy group formed who would "investigate" these instances without the heavy-handed tactics of some authorities? Give me a number I can call who will "look into" this and make a healthy determination as to the merits of the complaint. This would go a long way into creating a "self-policing" atmosphere for gun advocates. This would also take wind out of the sails of politicians and other government officials who jump onto this anti-gun bandwagon and create fear and uncertainty in the general public regarding weapons just to gather votes. Yes, education is one part of the answer I believe. People need a responsible introduction to weapons (how they work, how to handle them, moral lessons etc perhaps) with an unbiased view before a purchase. I'm not talking about gun advocacy groups running a workshop/seminar for weekend-warrior wannabes nor do I wish to see anitgun groups becoming a "Big Brother" shadow. There must be a middle ground right? Perhaps I just need to research this some more.... Regards, Peter J Strifas