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: d[-_-]b who wrote (498451)	7/27/2009 10:57:35 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574747

PUTTING THEIR SAFETY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS.... If you've ever visited Capitol Hill in Washington, especially in the post-9/11 era, you know there's quite a bit of security. Visitors, staffers, reporters, and guests have to go through metal detectors, not only to get into the Capitol itself, but also to enter any of the congressional office buildings. E.J. Dionne Jr. argued today that conservative lawmakers, loyal to the NRA, should at least try to do something about these security measures -- by fighting for their removal. Isn't it time to dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away and allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by being free to carry their firearms into the nation's Capitol? I've been studying the deep thoughts of senators who regularly express their undying loyalty to the National Rifle Association, and I have decided that they should practice what they preach. They tell us that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence. If they believe that, why don't they live by it? Why would freedom-loving lawmakers want to hide behind guards and metal detectors? Shouldn't NRA members be outraged that Second Amendment rights mean nothing in the very seat of our democracy? There's a tongue-in-cheek quality to Dionne's piece, but his argument is very compelling. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) insisted last week that Americans must "have the right to self-defense," and the more Americans are allowed to carry concealed firearms, the safer the public becomes. By that reasoning, Dionne explains, "keeping guns out of the Capitol makes all our elected officials far less safe. If just a few senators had weapons, the criminals wouldn't know which ones were armed, and all senators would be safer, right? Isn't that better than highly intrusive gun control -- i.e., keeping people with guns out of the Capitol in the first place?" Dionne didn't mention it, but there is a history of gun violence in the Capitol -- incidents, I should add, that happened before metal detectors were installed -- but I suppose that reinforces Dionne's thesis. If conservatives believe American families are safer if more people are carrying concealed firearms, and there have been shootings on the Hill before, it stands to reason the right would demand that more people be armed in Congress. It's necessary for "safety." Over to you, NRA.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (498451)	7/27/2009 10:59:45 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574747

Are you a birther, Eric?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (498451)	7/27/2009 11:01:01 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574747

His mom wasn't old enough and hadn't live in the US long enough for her age for obama to be a citizen, no matter what form she filled out