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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2025)	10/10/2000 5:20:23 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

And this scenario seems more likely to come to pass than, say, extremist groups and terrorists? You need to get rid of that Red Dawn video and start watching the news. What bothers me most is that people see the Constitution in such an 19th century way in one minute, when it suits their fantasy and then 20th century way in another. I want 19th century abortion standards but I want 20th century weapons. It was a document written by people, and, as such, it has flaws. That's why it has been amended. The Supreme Court is supposed to handle the relativism that is in the document by providing a time-weighted average to popular opinion. That is a good mechanism. But circling back to politics, you have to ask yourself what will your world in 10 years look like. I'm inclined to think that institutionalized loss of personal freedom is more likely that my need to fight in an armed resistance. It seems to be true based upon history. And as such, it means one vote's worth. Considering our Founding Fathers didn't trust us enough to even vote for President, it is remarkable that people even get so worked up about what their vote means in this election. If you want to exercise power, then you'd better vote for Senate and Congress. President is voted in by the Electoral College because your Founding Fathers didn't trust you. They wanted you to be armed, but they also wanted to curb your vote and made it exceedingly difficult to change the Constitution. Until you face their concerns, you will never understand why so many people are reluctant to change the restricted rights you have (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) in terms of gun ownership. Or abortion. But if you really care about the number of civil liberties taken from people, you better count the number of times peoples rights have been taken by gun-related confiscations and those who were in interment camps, discriminated against, denied jobs, given urine tests, beaten senseless in protests and denied abortions. It's all relative. And gun owner rights are not on my top 10 concerns. BTW, where were those gun owners when the Japanese Americans were hauled off by the authoritarian government? Or the dogs were set upon women and children in Selma? Or other demonstrations were met with police brutality. You know what, they supported it or were silent. So much for armed populace equals freedom. I own guns. I see no plausible case to be made that anyone is going to come take them today or in the next 10 years. Those other wrongs are occurring now or in recent past. THEY are likely to continue or worsen if we get more right-wing Justices. This time around, I'm not going right again.