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: Grainne who wrote (13448)	10/29/1997 12:16:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>>I think abortions should be hard to get, and that there should be more discussion of options, and a waiting period. But I also believe they should be legal and safe, because the only result of outlawing them is that women will start dying again from botched, back alley ones.<< I share this sentiment, but allow me to essay a noun swap. For "abortions" substitute "firearms". While I'm not for any nut being able to buy an M16 thru the mail, I'm a bit aghast at a whole string of public servants (notably the Bradys and our very own Dianne Feinstein) seeking to ban and perhaps even confiscate "politically incorrect" guns, like semiautos and military-style rifles. Ultimately I fear that the most expedient gun laws will forbid private firearm ownership altogether, like in Great Britain. Maybe the emphasis Stateside should be turned from demonizing the shootin'arn onto doing something about mean/dumb deeds with guns or any other weapon for that matter, but this doesn't make for as much political visibility. I wonder if a constitutional amendment might be penned to the effect of, say, "A well-regulated demography being necessary for a free state, the right of the peoble to NOT keep&bear young'uns shlaa not be infringed." Of course, seeing how effectively the Bill of Rights is working now, I don't see it helping a whole lot. (Note on semantic drift. Two hundred-and-some years ago, a "well-regulated" clock was one which told good time. A "well-regulated" militia was a band of armed citizens who could actually hit the target with their smokepoles. "Good regulation" denoted skill combined with good equipment. It's a lot more natural to look at the constitutional wording today and imagine "well-regulated" to mean "thoroughly covered by legislative and judicial restrictions". I wonder if that isn't part of the problem with modern scholars of the law asserting that the 2nd Amendment might be restricted to things like the National Guard, as a "collective" rather than "individual" entitlement. Bummer.) (I hesitate to speculate on the nature of a "well-regulated" reproductive tract.)