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: Enam Luf who wrote (91704)	11/28/2000 12:47:06 PM
From: kvkkc1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

No. I say enforce current gun laws. New gun laws will only serve to disarm the law abiding citizens, not the criminals. Gun control is an oxymoron.knc

To: Enam Luf who wrote (91704)	11/28/2000 1:07:51 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Just as a hypothetical... would you oppose stricter gun laws in metropolitan centers? Where is the scientific evidence to support stricter gun laws? Or is it just "common sense"? Hypothetically, if you supported self-defense rights, wouldn't gun laws be minimal?

To: Enam Luf who wrote (91704)	11/28/2000 1:21:16 PM
From: Qone0	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Just as a hypothetical... would you oppose stricter gun laws in metropolitan centers? The constitution of the U.S. grants the right to own and carry arms. The words gun law, gun permit, gun licence. In effect say that if you don`t have one of these. For you to own or carry arms is illegal. I ask you how can a right ever be illegal? And if one right requires a permit. Which right is next? You have a permit to say that? You are black do you have a permit to be here? The right to bear arms is the right that protects all the others.