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: TimF who wrote (94780)	1/11/2005 9:33:45 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793809

The NRA didn't support opposition to the law banning the semi-automatic so called assault weapons?? That my friend is the ultimate question. The answer is yes. But only those who have been trained in the use of bolt action or single shot rifles, semi-automatic rifles and automatic rifles seem to understand the real meaning of all of this. My guess is over 95%, maybe even 98%, of the rifles in America are semi-automatic. Banning a coupla models because they may have been used in war is ridiculous.

To: TimF who wrote (94780)	1/12/2005 10:12:07 AM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793809

Tim, I do not consider a weapon to be an assault weapon just because it is semi-automatic. Most of the pistols, and rifles, used for hunting, and personal protection, are semi-auto, and most assault weapons, either military, or street gang style, are fully automatic. Semi-autos have to be aimed, held properly, and the round must be squeezed off properly, for them to be accurate. What I don't think a citizen needs, is the Uzi type burp guns that just spray lead everywhere. I can understand why the NRA would not support a ban against semi-autos, and agree with their stand.