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: quehubo who wrote (36700)	4/22/2007 8:24:15 PM
From: Mark Mandel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541940

"I know I would rather be armed in the event of some large scale catastrophe/attack." Do you REALLY think you'll have a chance? Maybe an armored tank would help you out, given the description of the event, LOL. Mark

To: quehubo who wrote (36700)	4/22/2007 8:30:06 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541940

Well, you don't leave me much room for conversation. But I'll offer a bit. A gun is no different than a motor vehicle, something that kills and maims by irresponsible people in staggering numbers. Except for the fact that the purpose of the automobile is transportation, not killing. So there's really a vast difference. Alcohol, cigarettes, promiscuous sexual behaviour,obesity, etc. How far should the government get in your face. That's fairly easy. If you cause an accident because you are drunk, then I would certainly hope the government would be on your case. In fact, I hope you get picked up before you cause the wreck. As for cigarettes, second hand smoke does kill. So I hope we go further regulating the conditions under which smoking can take place. On the promiscuous sexual behavior, we should all have our fun. I'm not certain what sorts of sexual behavior you would put under that label. Obesity. I'm not aware of any laws making that illegal. If so, there are a helluva lot of lawbreakers wandering around my little town; let alone the streets of Manhattan on my last trip over the river. For some the right to possess firearms is no different than any of the other issues that impact all of us. I don't doubt some believe it. But that certainly doesn't make it so. On that list above I would rather see a drunk, obese smoker coming down the street toward me than a responsible looking citizen carrying a gun. (Can't figure out how to get the promiscuous sexual behavior into that illustration without stepping over a line or two.;-))

To: quehubo who wrote (36700)	4/22/2007 11:02:54 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 541940

IMO people should be given rigorous testing in order to purchase a gun. The gun lobby will fight that tooth and nail and make it problematic for any politician who supports it. Adding restrictions to gun ownership is spun into "they want to take all our guns away", the money rolls in to fight the evil threat and nothing changes. So in the end, we will have lots of guns and free access to more guns with barely lip service paid to responsible ownership, and no means to require more than lip service. The next Cho will buy his guns at a gun shop, or at a gun show if they actually make the spot checking system work in Virginia gun shops. Any idiot with a few hundred bucks can be a lethal threat to innocent civilians. That's pretty much the state of gun control in America today.