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 (94723)	1/11/2005 4:39:45 PM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793739

kholt, If the second amendment did not, specifically, state that citizens could bear arms, there have been times in our history, when there would have been a more concentrated effort to get all weapons out of the hands of citizen. Your argument seemed to be that we could own guns without the second amendment, which under the proper circumstances would be true, but circumstances change. That is why I rely on the second amendment to retain that right in the case of certain groups attempting to get guns out of the hands of lawful citizens. So, if you really think that there will never be a campaign by a possible liberal/socialistic administration that will attempt such a move, you have good reason to wonder about my stance, but as long as Hillary Rodham is alive, and is anywhere near being in public office, I will have trepidations concerning gun owning. I knew of her existence, ideals, thoughts, and plans, long before she became well known on a national scale. If ever the title of witch was ever earned by hard work, and diligence to evil intent, she has won that title, hands down. What I know, how I know it, and where I witnessed it, will not be disclosed. There are too many suspicious dead bodies along the side of the road she has walked.