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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (33921)	5/2/2005 2:16:35 PM
From: Ira Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

A policeman stopped a man for running a stop sign. When the policeman pointed out that he didn't stop, he told the policeman "I slowed down, what's the difference?" The policeman asked him to get out of the car and he would show him the difference. The policeman started beating the man about the head and shoulders with his nightstick. After a minute of this, the policeman paused and asked him "Do you want me to stop, or just slow down?" That is the choice given in gun legislation. "Gun Control" legislation is proposed that provides a continuous beating. "Compromise" means slowing down the beating. Why shouldn't there be an option to STOP the beatings? Ira

To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (33921)	5/2/2005 3:25:29 PM
From: Ira Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

A quote from Charlie Munger, not about Guns but about investments, but appropriate, none the less. "Some people seem to think there's no trouble just because it hasn't happened yet. If you jump out the window at the 42nd floor and you're still doing fine as you pass the 27th floor, that doesn't mean you don't have a serious problem. I would want to address the problem right now. They'd better face it." If you look back historically to the origin of the Second Amendment, you will find in the printed dialog the following opinions predominate. 1. The primary defense of the nation should be a militia. Not a 'National Guard', but Joe Citizen, dropping his hoe and grabbing his gun to defend the land. 2. Standing armies should be avoided to avoid having a large population of armed forces dependent on the government for wages. Over time, this view has now been watered down to our government’s view that guns need a ‘sporting use’ to be allowed under the second amendment. Somehow the idea of having an armed populous to keep our own government from degrading into despotism has been lost. As for the fear of a standing army: We now have a large: “Standing Army “Standing Air Force” “Standing Navy” “Standing Coast Guard” “Standing FBI” ”Standing CIA” “Standing State Police” (in every State) “Standing Sheriffs Department” (in every County) “Standing Police Force” (in every City and Town) All in the hands of the potentially despotic leaders. People, when arguing to disarm the American People seem to forget that the cry “The British are coming” was sounded because the British were arriving with the express intent of beginning a program to systematically remove arms from the Colonists, starting in Massachusetts. I find it particularly ironic that so many of the “Gun Ban” group actually resides in that state. Ira