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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (5890)	2/15/2001 12:35:39 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Given what's considered "reasonable" search and seizure in the war on drugs, the "well regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment would seem to cover a lot. Now, the in thing among NRA types seems to be right to carry concealed weapons laws, which should lead to a lot more of the scenarios you bring up. People get mad all the time, for a lot of silly reasons. Usually, it doesn't matter much, even if it comes to blows. Somebody's got a gun handy, though, things can take a fatal turn all too easily. It's a public health problem, guns kill about as many people as cars do, but cars are much more useful, and we're willing to do a lot to make them safer. It's politically hopeless, though. -Win.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (5890)	2/15/2001 9:43:16 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 82486

I don't see any inconsistency in a gun owner who doesn't believe in universal gun ownership. I grew up in a firly heavily armed household, and received a .22 for my 8th birthday. I shot competitively for a number of years in my teens, on a college team, went to Camp Perry twice. Through all this I was taught by people who made a near fetish of gun safety. I was hunting with my father one day, in my mid-teens, when we came upon a group of utter boors, guzzling whisky and blazing away indiscriminately at a #10 can on a fencepost, no more that 50 yards away. The can was still on the post after several dozen shots. Ever since then I've known that there are people who should not be armed. I realize now the practical difficulty and potential injustice involved in drawing the line between those who should be allowed to and those who should not be allowed to, but I still believe in restricted gun ownership.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (5890)	2/16/2001 5:29:30 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

People that want unlimited possession of the populace DON'T seem to want that with cars. Ah, but there is no 2nd Amendment for car ownership. There is no 2nd amendment for car ownership. Also there are no laws that I can think of that forbid some people from possessing a car. Even people who can't pass a driver's license test, or are too young to drive, or have had their license revoked can still own a car, and even drive it on their own property. Guy has fight with wife. He enters the freeway in my blind spot and thinks I cut him off. Blam. Gangs on subway can now legally be packing iron at 2am. I'm coming home late from a night job. Blam. The gang member could get a gun legal or illegal. Its not hard to get a gun. If he is not deterred by the possibility of facing murder charges, it is unlikely that he would be deterred by the fact that he can't legally carry a gun. Most gun murders are not committed by people who had been previously peaceful and law abiding but then suddenly lose it one day. Tim