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: Neocon who wrote (135098)	4/3/2001 12:40:29 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I think McVeigh was a secondary effect of that paranoia, which is fueled by the NRA. I see it even around here; they call themselves 'patriots' and vow to fight the government to the end. If there is a legitimate need to bear arms, I fear it may be against these nut cases. Agreed on the 'foreign invasion' argument. I do not believe there is a strong case for gun ownership for 'national defense'. I do not believe that a true foreign invader would have any trouble dealing with civilians armed with handguns and rifles. Depending on the invader, it would probably make things degenerate into an Afghanistan-type situation. I believe there is a stronger case for a 'Seven Days in May' type of situation, though extremely unlikely. However, as I've stated previously, our men and women in the military are not robots; they will not stand for an armed takeover of our government. And I've never heard of any of our military leaders as being that sort of material (to go down in infamy as the one that brought down American democracy). Hollywood may also be doing us a disservice in how it portrays criminals and criminal activities. In many movies, criminals are organized, dedicated, and sometimes downright courageous. It leaves the impression that an invasion by a 'criminal army' is probable (a la the Die Hard and Arnie movies). This may frighten people into thinking that they can rely less on organized law enforcement. I have stated previously that I think that having a rifle or shotgun for home protection is fine, especially in rural areas. The issue I've been commenting on is handguns. I believe that the existence of handguns gives the advantage to the criminal; they are easy to obtain, cheap, easy to use, easy to conceal. Private citizens having handguns, and carrying them around for 'self defense', makes the problem worse; citizens are not required to be trained in how to use them, and almost certainly don't have the proper training to handle a situation involving bystanders.