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: ColtonGang who wrote (51268)	10/24/2000 6:09:10 AM
From: U Up U Down	Respond to of 769670

The right to carry a bowie-knife for lawful defense is secured, and must be admitted. It is an exceeding destructive weapon. It is difficult to defend against it, by any degree of bravery, or any amount of skill. The gun or pistol may miss its aim, and when discharged, its dangerous character is lost, or diminished at least. The sword may be parried. With these weapons men fight for the sake of the combat, to satisfy the laws of honor, not necessarily with the intention to kill, or with a certainty of killing, when the intention exists. The bowie-knife differs from these in its device and design; it is the instrument of almost certain death. (p.403)He who carries such a weapon, for lawful defense, as he may, makes himself more dangerous to the rights of others, considering the frailties of human nature, than if he carried a less dangerous weapon. Now, is the legislature powerless to protect the rights of others thus the more endangered, by superinducing caution against yielding to such frailties? May the state not say, through its law, to the citizen, "this right which you exercise, is very liable to be dangerous to the rights of others, you must school your mind to forbear the abuse of your right, by yielding to sudden passion; to secure this necessary schooling of your mind, an increased penalty must be affixed to the abuse of this right, so dangerous to others." This would be in accordance with the well established maxim of law, that "you must so use your own as not to injure others." A law inflicting such increased penalty, would only be a sanction of this rule. 2ndlawlib.org

To: ColtonGang who wrote (51268)	10/24/2000 9:05:54 AM
From: Joseph F. Hubel	Respond to of 769670

<Maybe if there were less guns and less concealed guns in Texas there would be less murders. Why does Texas lead the nation in executions? Are Texans more violent?> ************ I really don't know. Some state had to have the most. I wouldn't know until I looked at the statistics as to weapon used, who commits them etc.. Could be from a no nonsense approach to crime or an over zealous approach. Whatever the reason, Texans seem satisfied with their system and it's been that way for some time. Outsiders seem to be the only ones complaining and it is a state's issue. It's the people, the judges and juries of Texas that convict and sentence them, not the Governor. JFH