SI
SI
discoversearch

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: TigerPaw who wrote (21000)6/20/2000 1:16:00 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 769667
 
fact is, it is none of the gov. **** business if I have one or ten weapons. The only reason to know is so when they get good and ready, they can come get them.(with your approval, evidently.)

Don't need a gun for a armadillo....got a 68 Buick.



To: TigerPaw who wrote (21000)6/20/2000 1:19:00 PM
From: DMaA  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
Please expand on your proposal to beef up the National Guard as an alternative to private gun ownership. It is the first time I've ever heard such a suggestion. Please give examples of how it could be used to protect civil liberties.

Specifically, how quickly could they get to my house if sometime at 3am I heard the sound of breaking glass?



To: TigerPaw who wrote (21000)6/20/2000 5:35:00 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
If people become accountable for their weapons then the pressure to eliminate them will reduce.

There is the possibility that if I and others were given enough weapons and ammunition, that I could learn to trust my government in the way that they do not trust me. It might depend on "how many others".


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News