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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (94278)	1/8/2005 1:55:21 PM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793745

Well, you raise a good point, so I will have to fall back to we need to be armed to protect ourselves FROM our government. You never know, the Dems might get back in power someday. (gg) jdn

To: Lane3 who wrote (94278)	1/8/2005 4:08:00 PM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793745

kholt, It doesn't matter what the situation is today. The right to bear arms is still in the Constitution, and no one has ever attempted to amend it. That makes it LEGAL!. The bearing of arms is not moot. If you are in your home, and it is attacked by robbers, maniacs, drug addicts, or any one else, neither the "so called" militias, or even the cops, are going to get there in time to protect you and your family. If the US Army, can be "An Army Of One", an individual can be a militia of one. If you had ever been in a dangerous situation with no weapon, and limited time to contact the authorities, you would be singing a different tune.