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: quasar_1 who wrote (6218)	11/15/2000 7:51:38 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Re: "armed insurrection against the US government would leave us a society where anarchy reigned. There would be no winners!" It's not at all clear to me that there is any particular reason why anarchy would reign. What makes what you envision different from the American Revolution? Dan B

To: quasar_1 who wrote (6218)	11/16/2000 8:02:54 AM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

<<the 2 amendment is a God given right... It is a man given right AND a responsibility. God doesn't carry a gun the last time I checked. It is by the consent of the governed.>> When one ties the Declaration of Independence with our bill of rights, it becomes clear this is as solid a right as any other. We neither require a registration form of the freedom of speech nor license the freedom of the press or of religion! I know not about your idea of God, but I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to prove he doesn't carry or own a firearm, afterall, does not everything good belong to Him! <<It is a man given right AND a responsibility. God doesn't carry a gun the last time I checked. It is by the consent of the governed>> No, all government exists only at Consent of the Governed! Human rights are the "certain unalienable rights" that have been "endowed by their Creator" and proven by court, law, war, & blood. <<Do we want to live in a society where we have armed violence in the streets? Should this become the Gaza strip? Let's say everyone who bears arms rises up against the state. >> Do I want to live where you say, no,because I believe in a greater freedom that is sought by either side in the Gaza Strip dispute. Anything I could say here would pale against that said by our founders: "There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I do not wish for blood in the streets or promote any form of open insurrection against our government. Where, though, must the line drawn from which we find there is no longer consent of the governed? Will it be attempted only after the chains are locked or will we take back our government through use of the ballot & the pen first? Is not the strongest answer owning both the full free rifle & full free pen? <<Should ordinary citizens be allowed to have helicopter gunships? How about surface to air missiles. How about backpack nuclear devices? Where does it end? Is there no limit to the armament one individual can muster? Once again, many deliver a simplistic answer to a profoundly difficult question. I don't think any interpretation of the words or the spirit of the second amendment would allow for individuals to arm themselves with bio weapons, chemical weapons, backpack nukes or other weapons of mass destruction. So where do we draw the line? This is where the debate should center. >> Those who have no respect for firearms often also have little knowledge of their history. This is proven when we often hear quotes & quips about our founders never seeing an assult weapon. The Kentucky form longrifle was the best weapon of the day, the ultimate sniper rifle, the fear of the Red Coated leaders of H.M. 'a armies in the new world. It was broadly known as better than the "Brown Bess" musket carried by the Brittish troops & entire squads of skilled riflemen were commissioned as officers by General Washington - if they supplied their own rifle! When the war ended there was No call for these men to give up their own finest of "assult weapons" of the day! Col George Hanger, a British officer, became very interested in the American rifle after he witnessed his bugler's horse shot out from under him at a distance, which he measured several times himself, of "full 400 yards", and he learned all he could of the weapon. He writes: "I have many times asked the American backwoodsman what was the most their best marksmen could do; they have constantly told me that an expert marksman, provided he can draw good & true sight, can hit the head of a man at 200 yards." Quotations from M.L. Brown's, FIREARMS IN COLONIAL AMERICA <<Extremists provide the false choice to empower their extremism. >> Freedom is never extremism, it is only freedom. The suggestion we should forefit our 2nd amendment right is no better that the suggestion we whould return to slavery with people sold at auction in every public square!