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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (20118)	2/27/2002 8:54:44 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

An armed society is a polite society I used to completely agree with that, but after several years of seeing all of these nations with citizens armed to the teeth and constantly waging clan feuds, I have moderated my view on the issue. There's something to be said for having the means to defend one's self codified in a governmental constitution or Bill of Rights. But such a right can only truly exist if all of the other rights (free speech, privacy, ...etc) are included and enforced. And it also has something to do with making those who carry guns have something to lose, other than their lives. If they have nothing of value, materially or spiritually, to prevent them from committing violence against others, letting them possess weapons is like letting your 14 year have the keys to the Ferrari. But it's an important topic to be discussed vis-a-vis "nation building" and how far folks should go in trying to disarm the local population to the point where their only personal security derives from the central government (which can only be a bad thing, left unchecked). Hawk