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 (146043)	4/23/2002 4:51:13 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 1575535

Ted re: I think defending the right to own guns in this society when they cause so much damage is nearly as offensive as suggesting a pimp should hit his 'ho to keep her in line. have it ever occured to you that taking guns off the street is pretty much equivalent to taking guns from those with legally own one? Those who want to have it illegally would have no problem buying it on streets, and no waiting period too..... -Albert

To: tejek who wrote (146043)	4/23/2002 7:13:15 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1575535

I think defending the right to own guns in this society when they cause so much damage is nearly as offensive as suggesting a pimp should hit his 'ho to keep her in line. That does not mean the two are analogous......however, its the way I view it; its my bias. Ted, even if I am seen as mistaken, and making a horrible mistake, I don't see how that is low. Low would mean something ignoble or immoral, a defect in charecter not a mistake in judgement. I don't think you think that people who disagree with you on any major controversial issue, or on specifically gun control, are immoral or suffer from a defect in their charecter. I think your ideas on this matter are mistaken, and would result in less freedom, less respect for the constitution and quite possibly more murders (though admiditly accidental gun deaths might be reduced), I have even more problems with your opinion on abortion because I think ideas like yours result in the deaths of millions of innocents. However I don't think that your opinions or your charecter or your arguments are "low". You are supporting what you see as right, and you are not doing anything evil in support of the cause. You support what I see as evil causes but not using evil methods or for evil reasons, so I would just say that you are horribly in error, not that you or your arguments are low, or in any way like a pimp. I understand the argument.......and with cars and pools we keep coming up with new safety legislation, improved protection devises, and restrictions on who can and can not drive or when a pool can or can not be used. All I am asking is that the same be done with guns.......enough so that there is a significant reduction in gun deaths and injuries much like there has been with cars. We have more regulations on guns then on pools or most other things. Maybe even more then on cars despite the fact that cars kill more people then guns. Also you can have extensive safety regulations on cars without keeping them from being used as effective means of transportation. You can't go to far in making guns safe without hurting their effectiveness in hunts or was the means of self defense. My point exactly...........we should not allow so many guns in our society. I think if we keep the ratio at the same level as the number of scorpions in houses we will be doing fine. I'm not sure its illegal to have a scorpion in your house or that anyone with a scorpion in their house is required to register this fact with the government. We have less scorpions because they are less useful and more dangerous. There isn't any demand for them. ________ "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. " How do you start out without those assumptions? They are factored in already. Two ways. Some people haven't made up their mind yet and don't have them factored in. For others they can examine the logic and ethics of the situation with either assumption. I'm pro-life but I can logically conclude that if the fetus is not human, and is defined as being not important then it would be wrong for it to be outlawed because it would control the pregnant woman in an unjust way. Just as I can think or argue starting with the pro-choice assumption, I can think or argue with the question of the humanity of the fetus defined as uncertain. If you don't start out with the assumption that a fetus is not a human with its own importance and rights, can you argue that men shouldn't have an inportant part in the question - "should abortion be legal?" Tim