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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (21635)	6/21/2006 9:39:20 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

They shouldn't be forced to go arm themselves and then take the risks that having a firearm entails. No, they shouldn't and it's a shame. But there's nothing much we can do for them. Not much we can do for those objecting to the material on TV, either. People just have to recognize that our society is what it is and deal with whatever features they find aberrant as best they can. There are things that can be done by the individual to mitigate the impact of each of these influences but there's no wall.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (21635)	6/21/2006 10:25:23 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541582

Individual ownership of weapons has been around far longer than the Second Amendment: :-)

To: Dale Baker who wrote (21635)	6/21/2006 11:38:16 AM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

"...They shouldn't be forced to go arm themselves and then take the risks that having a firearm entails." That's a surprising statement. Nobody is "forced" to arm themselves. Many, perhaps most, do as a matter of prudence, though.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (21635)	6/21/2006 12:14:28 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541582

Since I've been away from the computer, I've been out of this conversation but the point you make here, Dale, strikes me as the one I would The so-called decency folks can take the positive step of turning off objectionable programs in their household. But the non-gun person can't control his neighbor's gun that could mistake him for a prowler or just be used in a fit of pique; can't control the armed driver behind him whose road rage overcomes his inhibition to pulling the trigger; the armed robber who can hit the store our guy is in or carjack him at gunpoint, and so on. make in the comparison between these two approaches. As for you, Karen, I'm sympathetic to the wholistic approach but just don't it's ever politically viable. I think it wiser to consider the wholisic element and then see just how much of an advantage a given politically supported compromise produces, how much it might contribute to some momentum in the direction of getting more done, including changing the political culture on that item, if ever so little.