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: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (1055)	4/28/2000 5:05:00 PM
From: PJ Strifas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10167

Perhaps you could explain how in the same post you claim: "Some people shouldn't own guns. Felons, mentally ill (needs some proof) and children." And then in the next sentence you explain that owning a gun is: "freedom guaranteed, not granted by the Constitution. It comes with responsibilities, but it can't be arbitrarily taken away to make the world appear safer" I've reread this countless time and here's what I see. In the first place you agree that there SHOULD BE CONTROLS on gun ownership. You clearly state a few instances. Then you turn and state that the right to own a gun CAN NOT BE TAKEN AWAY. In the first statement, the right to own a gun IS taken away! Which one is it? If we can intelligently determine the instances whereby a person is deemed "incapable" of responsibly owning a gun, we can then effect the necessary "controls" that WILL MAKE THIS WORLD SAFER. There must be individual determinations we can make for the ownership of a gun. The problem I see here is that if anyone proposes ANY type of rules or "controls" it means that the entire essence of the "guaranteed right to own a gun" will disappear! I don't buy it. It's manipulating people by creating fear in the public that if they can take this freedom from us, they can take them all. Isn't that a very extreme view? I mean, what benefit would any authority gain by changing the way we live our lives today? In fact, the US Government has spent too much time, effort, money etc to create this very society we live in FOR their benefit!!! Why destroy the essence of what keeps us who/what we are? So this leaves us with an inadequate solution where we choose to protect every inch of this freedom from POSSIBLY eroding the entire freedom(s) we enjoy into oblivion (an extreme viewpoint) instead of finding a good common ground that would clearly make life in the US safer. Interesting discussion.... :) Regards, Peter J Strifas