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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The coming US dollar crisis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: benwood who wrote (26938)	2/8/2010 1:41:36 PM
From: SG	Respond to of 71475

You're probably right. My state (MA), the most anti-gun state, is considering a law barring state authorities from seizing weapons from legal owners during a crisis like in LA. I've contacted my state rep to poke him on it. The Feds, of course, can do whatever the hell they want. SG

To: benwood who wrote (26938)	2/8/2010 1:57:27 PM
From: LTK007	3 Recommendations Respond to of 71475

IF(i repeat IF!) matters were ever to come to such confrontation then ONLY, and i mean ONLY Massive Massive Unarmed Crowds in D.C., could have any effect---i mean Millions(and brave millions at that, as one Russian on the day of hitting the streets said "We are tired of being AFRAID"). Who ever was POTUS would have to make or NOT make The Gorbachev decision. Gorbachev decided he would NOT have a blood bath to stop a revolution and thus let the revolution happen. If whomever was POTUS chose to attack the crowd, it would be a massive blood bath of the crowd. Any that believe an armed revolution would work have NO clue of the power of the U.S.Military, and our volunteer army is programmed to protect the state. Max