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 (94417)	1/9/2005 2:38:44 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793790

If you are arguing that the right to own a gun is no different than the right to own any other form of private property, I disagree. History tells us that oppressive governments consolidate power by disarming the citizens. No oppressive government has ever confiscated teddy bears. The sticking point is that the term "militia" has gotten a bad reputation due to the nuts running around in places like Idaho. The founders definitely wanted all able bodied free men to be able to take up arms in times of need of a militia. Just what that entails has been lost, and the argument now centers on the right to own guns in isolation from the purpose of having a militia. We have a gigantic standing military, and use it for purposes the founders would have found abhorrent. Which is one reason I have to laugh when conservatives talk about "original intent."

To: Lane3 who wrote (94417)	1/9/2005 2:53:11 PM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793790

kholt, As far as I am concerned, there is no difference in owning a gun, or a teddy bear. My problem is that bleeding heart liberals are, constantly, harping on the issue that all guns should be banned from individual ownership. That bothers me, because the American liberals are sounding more, and more, like socialists, who want to control the entire gross product of the nation, and as has been done in history, form a commission of elitists, that dole out what "they" believe the people are entitled to have from that collection. It has been shown in history, that such socialism has caused a significant proportion of the populous to lower their productivity, and curtails the building of businesses that fuel the economy. It is the same as every citizen must conform to the wishes of the core rulers, and still go begging for the means to exist. The second amendment is the only reference to fire arms, in the constitution. At least I haven't seen any other part of the constitution that does. That leaves the honest, productive, and lawful, citizen hanging on a thin thread that supports his need of a protective weapon. As far as teddy bears go, I wouldn't want a militant muslim, or other fanatic, to have a teddy bear because it is quite possible that they would plant a bomb inside of it, and use their own child to blow others up. Nothing against the teddy bear, but a bite of reality in the world today. In speaking of weapons, I mean ownership by those that know how, why, and when, to use one in a lawful manner. An adjustment in our judicial system could make that easier, if penalties for gun crimes were more severe, and every state had the death penalty for, "deserving" murderers.