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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JeffA who wrote (105783)	6/10/2005 11:02:09 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

In a civilized society, it seems logical that the police should have the biggest, most powerful weapons, and that armor-piercing bullets, for example, should not be readily available. And that police associations should be respected, and should carry a lot of weight re what weapons are legal. The kind of society you seem to be advocating for is one based on citizens defending themselves, and represents a general lack of concern or consideration for the safety and efficacy of law enforcement officers. In my opinion that is a retrograde, lawless society in reality. Since guns are legal in this society, it seems to me that you might be able to defend yourself from harm without having to have weapons so powerful that terrorists now flock to the U.S. to buy because they are legal here. I think something is terribly wrong with this picture! In a lawful society, it is everyone's business how heavily people are armed. I don't know why that is so hard to understand, really.