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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hoa Hao who wrote (61022)	11/13/2000 2:28:07 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116764

<<Actually, the answer is pretty simple. Weapons available to the average infantryman should be available to the average citizen. The price of more advanced weapons pretty much keeps them out of the hands of the most unstable. Those most unstable generally can not generate the cash necessary to acquire, accouter, or gain proficiency with more advanced weapons. Our problem lies within the heart of the society itself. 25, 30 years ago it was not uncommon for kids to take guns to school, give them to the principle, then collect them afterwards to go hunting. Some would even take them to shop classes to work on stocks or the steel workings. Face it, Baby Boomers suck as parents, just as they suck as Presidents. >> Hey, some of us just don't like those "ugly guns", the most advanced black or cammo plastic is just plain ugly. We would rather own rich walnut or rose wood with deep blueing Vs. nasty military parkerized finish. Then I guess we should define "advanced". I'd never step in the line preventing ownership of one of the ugly guns, but some of us just have little of no desire. I agree, with the help of our schools we are terrible parents.