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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oblivious who wrote (111605)	3/26/2012 3:59:14 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 149317

Hmm. Well, the gun laws that were applicable back during the Revolution, don't seem quite appropriate for the modern age. Consider this. Why are the laws so loose as to allow criminals such ease of access to machine guns? Why do citizens need automatic weapons to kill deer? I understand the need for protections around the right to bear arms. Especially in these times, where I believe our Constitutional rights are getting trampled on by Congress and Obama. It makes people get more strident about their right to bear arms, in case the glue of our society starts to crumble under the weight of government abuses, such as assassination of American citizens, unlimited detention of citizens, and wiretaps and searches and seizure in airports without judicial oversight. So yes, I understand the need to protect our right to bear arms. But don't you think there is a balance? I need the right to bear a handgun to protect myself. But what do I need the right to bear a machine gun? It's all out of balance. And then why do the gun laws work well in the UK? Is their model better than ours? I don't have strong preferences here, because I don't own guns and am opposed to violence or the killing of animals or any living thing, for sport. So I haven't given it much thought. But the above are my concerns.