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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (15765)	10/20/2002 7:10:33 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

You can talk about the militia all you want. No matter what the militia is or who organizes it, the Second Amendment still says "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Period. By the way, the historical implementation of the militia is everyone capable of bearing arms, i.e., the people. The first clause puts no restrictions on the second, so all this concern about militias does not really apply anyway. Still, my question remains, why are you so intent on abridging my rights, your rights, our rights? Do you have some reason why you want the people to be disarmed? Do you think criminals should have guns but not law abiding citizens? That's what you're asking for.

To: jttmab who wrote (15765)	10/21/2002 1:59:34 AM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies Good point, IMO, one of the major problems of the US today: Instead of reducing standing armies after war as was intended, starting in 1947 the DOD discovered it could extort perpetual funding thru official secrecy and deception... An abnornal growth on the body politic, a larger and larger hammer looking at the rest of the world as a bucket of nails. It always cracks me up to listen to some SecDef justifying the DOD budget increase as a "percentage of GDP", as if that was somehow related to the security produced. It's like a mafia protection racket, "how much can we extort from this dry cleaner without putting him out of business?" They're figuring out how they can sufficiently scare the crap out of Americans to extort maximum GDP. After Eisenhower the extortion had a limit - it used to be: too much, and Americans will stay inside and work less and pay fewer taxes. Too little, and there's money still left on the table. Then Reagan/Bush I discovered it doesn't matter if the economy is sickened by war extortion, they can just extract trillions from the future, raising the nat'l debt as high as they like, using overwhelming US military threat to force dollars down the throats of the rest of the world.

To: jttmab who wrote (15765)	10/21/2002 8:52:21 AM
From: The Street	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93284

The Bill of Rights are by definition INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS given to citizens of the USA. Think they just made a mistake and included the 2nd in there??? What a moron... ---------------------- dictionary.com bill of rights n. pl. bills of rights Bill of Rights The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, added in 1791 to protect certain rights of citizens.