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 (142286)	2/3/2002 3:33:11 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578655

The ACLU does protect to the excess at times the various rights provided for under the Constitution.....that is their sole purpose without ulterior motivation. The NRA is by no stretch of anyone's imagination a comparative organization. The NRA's sole purpose is a more specific one. To protect our second amendment right. The only reason you see the two as not being similar in their efforts to protect constitutional rights is that you don't think the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is a good idea. The NRA has the advantage of sticking to its mission. The ACLU is all over the place. It doesgood work protecting our constitutional rights but pushing a liberal agenda is one of its central missions. If nearly 30,000 deaths per year means nada to you and is not a persuasive enough reason for strict gun control, then I can't imagine what argument would convince you. Almost 30,000 deaths mean a lot, but I don't want to increase that number by taking guns out of the hands of responsible law abiding citizens. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (142286)	2/4/2002 12:14:07 AM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578655

tejek, re: If nearly 30,000 deaths per year means nada to you and is not a persuasive enough reason for strict gun control, then I can't imagine what argument would convince you. How about one that looks at who is causing those 30K deaths. It sure isn't your law abiding NRA member with a concealed carry permit. The statistical significance of a law abiding citizen going out for the first time and killing someone is quite small. Criminals, those that break hundreds of existing gun laws, are in almost every case already not supposed to carry a weapon are causing those deaths - as England is a perfect example. Your argument is made for TV news ratings, non-critical thinker that really wants to do good - but just doesn't have time to look at the facts "guns are bad" attitude. Do you have a single shred of evidence that by keeping law abiding citizens from handguns would have any real impact on that 30K figure? There's a commercial on lately claiming smoking causes 18K+ miscarriages per year. Shouldn't we ban smoking? I'll bet drinking is involved in a lot of deaths as well, what should we do there? If you think these things should be banned as well, I sure don't want to live in the country you dream of. I'd like to see something done about all those other senseless deaths, of which my friends eight year old son was killed by a drunk driver, with three prior DWI accidents - he got a six month jail sentence - big deal. You can't go around banning everything you don't like, it didn't work in the past and it sure doesn't work today. Besides, folks have a constitutional right to own guns, smoke and drink - something about a pursuit of happiness, life, liberty and all that.