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 (1071)	5/1/2000 3:54:00 PM
From: PJ Strifas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10167

Gordon, Thanks for taking time to shed some insights on this topic. It's good to see that we can disagree in principle yet continue to have a discussion :) It seems to me that what you are proposing is to arm every citizen as a deterent. I don't know about that concept. I don't believe there will be a decrease in violent acts with guns if everyone owned one. Remember, guns are not merely "defensive". (I'd point to South Central LA and the "street gang wars". In this instance, the high availability of weapons perpetuates more violence not the opposite as you argue). I like your perspective of Vermont but do you really think this example would follow in states like NY, CA or FLA? With denser populations, the statistics of crime often rise exponentially (goes to the statistical nature of probability). Therefore I'd say Vermont is an example that needs to have a asterisk next to it. Also, looking to current events and the Elian scenario - I'd hate to think that a group of people with an agenda would have the ability to freely arm themselves to resolve an issue which the majority of Americans saw as "not right" if not completely "illegal". You don't think anarchy would become more of an issue as people turned to armed resistance instead of working within the system to effect change? Do we really need revolution and not evolution? Is life in America THAT BAD? What happens when personal agendas are in sharp contrast to our society's laws? I think we need to look into these ancillary effects of arming the general population. I'd hate to think what would happen in places where issues were so divisive that armed force would become an easy option for small groups of people. Please don't confuse this with government control in the extreme (don't compare it to Nazi Germany please). Do you think we'd be enjoying all this prosperity and good living if there were no centralized government looking out for our well-being? I really enjoy this statement: If you propose to trade freedom for safety, in the words of Ben Franklin and many others, you will have neither. But don't we trade "freedoms" every day to live within a specific society? By definition, communities are defined as a grouping of individuals who agree to live by specified guidelines. What we do is draw a line with respect to certain "freedoms" as to how much we are willing to give up for a certain standard of living. We can not equate absolute freedom with the "freedom" guaranteed by the Constitution and within a community. If you want absolute freedom, you will need your own country :) In the case of guns, your line is much different than my line which is why we are having this discussion in the first place. I can't expect you to change your mind nor can I expect the forceable "re-drawning" of that line to appease my needs. But if the majority determines that your view is not acceptable, then change will happen. As it stands now, my view is in the minority and I live with it peacefully. We all have views which are in the minority but we balance those with the views we hold with the majority and the benefits of living within our communities. Regards, Peter J Strifas