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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (4548)	12/7/2000 5:03:12 AM
From: William Marsh	Respond to of 13062

I never advocated repealing the 2nd. I said it should be repealed if it meant what some say it does. The 2nd is used to defend weapons as irrelevant to reasonable self-defense as flame-throwers (or close). These weapons are used in crimes. My only comment on registration is that I don't see why it would be unconstitutional if prohibiting grenades etc. isn't. By itself, it wouldn't do much to reduce violence. All in all, I don't think fewer guns would make us less violent, but it would reduce the consequences of violence. I think something might be accomplished by legislation which further restricted certain types of guns and ammo, but not much. I read about the court case. I guess when I think of guns used in crimes, I don't think of career criminals so much as domestic violence, school shootings, whacko postal workers, etc. - i.e. crime of impulse and opportunity. I might as well unfurl my flag and say what will really make us safer are fewer angry, desperate people and this is only to be achieved by greater social justice.