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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (142127)	1/24/2002 11:51:48 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579068

tejek, re: Actually, controlling the proliferation of guns would be the easier task if it weren't for the NRA. How so, and why? The NRA has never advocated that criminals be allowed to have guns - so what's the problem if citizens have one or a hundred and one?

To: tejek who wrote (142127)	1/24/2002 11:52:13 PM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579068

Ted check the MOD thread.

To: tejek who wrote (142127)	1/25/2002 1:13:38 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579068

In my analogy I equating the difficulty in finding a cure for cancer to the difficulty in controlling guns. Thats a poor analogy. Guns can protect you against other people with guns. Cancer doesn't protect you against cancer. Getting cancer is bad, I don't think there is any good cancer. Guns are not universally bad. They can help they can hurt, or they can do neither. No one would fight for the right to have cancer. Actually, controlling the proliferation of guns would be the easier task if it weren't for the NRA. Controling the proliferation of guns would cause more deaths from guns in the US, unless the control extends to an enforcible ban. NRA or no NRA it would be very hard to enforce a ban and the last people left with guns would be hardend criminals. I viewed your comments as admitting that there was reason why gun advocates are considered kooks. And my suggestion was, you might want to consider why that was. The reason is that many in the media thing that those who fight against gun control are kooks is that they are biased for gun control. Your comments re crimes against whites do not reflect my experiences at all and thus, are not worth my arguing. Are you claiming that white people are not murdered or are not the victims of awful crimes? Or that no crime against whites is racially motivated? If the answer to all of these questions is now then it would seem that you are agreeing with the comments from my post that you quoted. I have worked under the affirmative action laws and never once thought I was discriminated against or deprived of a job because I was white. I haven't either. However others have and this is legally enforced discrimination in some cases. Trying to stamp out such discrimination is not lame. Getting rid of such discrimination against whites in and of itself makes things more just, plus it will hopefully reduce race centered thinking and cause people to treat other people as people, not as whites, blacks, asians, or whatever which should cause a reduction in unjust discrimination by individuals against people of all races. (but it will take awhile it wont be an overnight thing) Tim