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: TimF who wrote (142148)	1/25/2002 6:13:52 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579732

Ted, "weapons of mass destruction" usually means nuclear weapons, perhaps biological or chemical agents. Which one of these things do you think the NRA encourages people to own? Tim, apparently Bush doesn't know that because he described the terrorists as wielding weapons of mass destruction, and those weapons have proven to be handguns, rifles, uzis and the occassional missile launcher. Since these weapons do kill lots of people and cause considerable destruction, maybe Bush considers them a component in the weapons of mass destruction concept. Also even if it was arguing that private citizens should have the right to own nuclear weapons that would not make it a terrorist organization or mean that it would be appropriate for the US military to wage war against the NRA. First you want to ignore the 2nd amendment and now it seems you want to ignore the 1st. Which one is next? Neither.......there is no amendment that says we must have an organization that uses its influential millions of dollars to fight for the right to carry and wield weapons....weapons that are used to kill citizens of this country. So I am not violating any amendment by suggesting that maybe the NRA should be dealt with as a terrorist organization because it encourages the wielding of weapons of mass destruction. ted