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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommaso who wrote (125549)	9/25/2001 6:58:25 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Tommaso - .... I do not belong to the NRA, do not carry a concealed weapon, and favor the registering of weapons--though if it seemed to me that registration was preliminary to taking away my guns, I would probably disobey the law.... In spite of everything you may read by either gun supporters or opponents, the purpose of the second amendment is to try to hamper the expansion of power that any government will always seek. It does this not by enabling an armed firefight with the government, but rather by helping to create a sense of uncertainty in the government as to exactly how much their cost will be in attempting to confiscate weapons from the citizenry. This is why registration would be a mistake, as it may well allow the agents of government to make a mistaken calculation that they can afford to pay the price. Regards, Don

To: Tommaso who wrote (125549)	9/25/2001 11:19:30 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Tommaso - depending on where you live, most of the weapons you inherited don't require permits. Some places, e.g., D.C., don't allow private ownership of handguns without a permit, due to local law. Some weapons, e.g., machine guns, bazookas, cannons, cannot be owned by private citizens without a permit, due to federal law. Registration of handguns is historically a first step towards confiscation, but I like to think that in the USA, that's not much of a problem. Personally, I don't have a problem with prohibiting convicted felons from owning handguns, nor with prohibiting people who are subject to protective orders from buying them. I concede that a man who threatens to kill his estranged wife won't necessarily act on his threats, but I prefer to take them seriously.