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 (142154)	1/25/2002 9:15:58 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1579740

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. There is some sign that they might have had some chemical weapons, and its possible (but there no proof of this) that they could have anthrax. Also they turned airplanes in to pretty good weapons of mass destruction. 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.... There is an ammendment that they are trying to protect (the 2nd) and another ammendment that gives them the right to try to protect it (the 1st). Saying we should treat the NRA like we have been dealing with Ak-Qaida would go against those as well as such ideas as not allowing "creul and unusual punishment" and "ex post facto laws" and other constitutional principles. Tim