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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (272487)	2/6/2006 2:39:56 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574683

as, re:Get a clue, pal. Military weapons should not be in civilian hands. There's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing military weapons. Just "arms". In those days, all they had beyond muskets were cannons Using your line of thinking - those muskets were the pinnacle of gun technology at the time - so we should in fact have those available. There's also nothing banning or restricting the types or class of weapons for self defensive purposes. re:get hard-ons for machine-guns You just don't get it - machine guns are already banned, have been since 1934. re:Kerry would never suggest taking away any weapon used for hunting. You don't need a machine-gun to hunt. As I said the ar-15, ak-47 and the sks in civilian hands are not machine guns - the ar-15 makes an excellent varmint rifle, with semi-automatic action follow up shots on prairie dogs is made easy and coupled with a 30 round magazine it makes the wrists and arms less tired. The SKS makes an excellent deer rifle, now the ak-47 is an inaccurate piece of junk, yet it's extremely reliable and reasonably accurate to 100 yards. The worst part of hunting with an AK-47 is the looks you get from other hunters - I just wouldn't do it myself.