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 (145973)	4/23/2002 11:56:21 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575421

I do have a high opinion of you and we've discussed the gun control issue before......based on the evidence, I don't believe we are talking about a constitutional right. I don't expect you to agree with my opinions against gun control but you can disagree without thinking the other person's opinions or arguments are "low". I find statements like "your defense of guns is really beneath who you are" strange. Guns cause senseless harm to people, often killing them in the process. I consider any argument that defends there usage beyond recreational hunting to be stupid. That's like me defending the usage of scorpions as pets......and scorpions don't kill as many people as guns do. Many gun accidents are accidents that happen to recreational hunters or people who are shot by them, or people who shoot themselves or others with guns that belong to hunters. If accidents are a reason to ban guns why not ban recreational hunting as well (and cars and maybe swiminng pools) Scorpions are a lot more dangerous because they can attack people on their own. Scorpions cause less problems because you don't have a couple of hundred million of them in peoples houses. I could come up with a bunch of arguments about horrible things that happened in or because of cars, swimming pools, stairways, showers, even buckets of water. None of which normally would be considered a lethal weapon. Your argument didn't have anything to do with lethal weapons. You mentioned a gun accident. Lots of things can be the cause of accidents. You might want to develop an argument based on the idea of lethal weapons but you didn't do so in that post. What I don't think we should be allowed is to permit widespread ownership of lethal weapons period. Why, and how would a ban work? No, men can be involved but I think women should have the lead. What is wrong with that? What's wrong with that is it effectively disenfranchises half of the population. Even if you start with your assumption that an unborn child is really just a clump of cells then it shouldn't be an issue of women to decide, it should be an issue for each individual woman to decide, other women should have no more input then other men. And that assumes you start out with the assumption then a fetus is a clump of cells with no more significance then a tadpole. If you start out with neither the pro-life or the pro-choice assumptions then you are dealing with a controversial political and philisophical issue on which everyone should have a chance to have their voice heard. Tim