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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (20989)	6/20/2000 11:59:00 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

One of the saddest aspects of this debate is that the NRA has been taken over by the manufacters of cheap handguns, but they get the rank and file to think it's something else. In case of coup it not going to be the folks running around with fifty-nine dollar .25 automatic pistols that restore democracy, yet Charlton Heston is getting finger cramps trying to hold on to the right to sell as many as possible. What does the pledge sound like at the beginning of an NRA meeting .. baaaa baaaa baaa TP

To: DMaA who wrote (20989)	6/20/2000 1:00:00 PM
From: Red Heeler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<Tobacco only kills. Guns save lives.> Not necessarily. I was once assailed by a crazed liberal and, having both cigarettes and a gun on my person and inspired by a moment of empirical curiosity, decided to defend myself with tobacco instead of the gun. Having often heard that cigarettes kill more people than guns, I was initially optimistic. However, my optimism quickly faded. (Which is more than I can say for the growing tintinnabulation growing in my ears as a result of my assailant's tirade designed to help someone other than himself.) Here are the results of my experiment: My first difficulty arose with the realization that the cigarette must be lit. I've never had to light a gun before using it, but the cigarette must be lit if one desires to defend oneself properly. (A side note. Do not attempt to defend yourself with chewing tobacco or snuff. Snuff is only effective for momentarily blinding one's opponent and chewing tobacco depends much too heavily on one's ability to expectorate with great accuracy and force. My great uncle, Lucky Rel Cooper, is the only person I've known to successfully defend himself with chewing tobacco and I think he was successful only because he happened to be chewing an entire package of Beech Nut at the time.) The great problem with lighting the weapon is that one is forced to turn one's back on one's assailant because the great wind emanating from him makes flicking one's Bic impossible. Turning my back only encouraged my assailant, as he viewed the turn as an attempt to flee the confrontation. However, once I succeeded in lighting the weapon my chances of success appeared greatly improved. Indeed, once lit, the cigarette appeared to have an immediate fearsome effect and my assailant immediately recoiled in disgust. Unfortunately, the effect was short-lived and gave my assailant ammunition for a new assault on the dangers of smoking and its deleterious effects on innocent bystanders. Nevertheless, with your weapon now lit options for defense are increased. You now have smoke at your disposal. And where there's smoke, there's fire. I find that the smoke is effective enough, but by the time it has done its work, the assailant has most likely aged into some degree of sensibility and curtailed his assault. After all, at 50 a man can be an ass without being an optimist but not an optimist without being an ass. That leaves the fire which, while not deadly, is wonderfully effective if applied in the correct manner. I leave you to infer for yourself its potential. In the end, I found my little experiment to be less than encouraging and have given up cigarettes entirely as a means of self defense. However, I do still carry cigars. But that's another story. CC