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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DanDerr who wrote (57329)	10/18/2012 12:32:19 PM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Politicians don't want to be specific. They want to ban every weapon. Disarming citizens is required to make the dictatorial socialist takeover less dangerous. After they get a weapons ban in place they will let activist judges stretch the meaning until a super soaker™ is defined as a banned weapon. Hopefully a little exaggeration get the point across without actually have the realistic possibility of coming true. I have a lot of friends who have guns. Owning weapons is not a passion of mine.

To: DanDerr who wrote (57329)	10/18/2012 12:46:22 PM
From: d[-_-]b	2 Recommendations Respond to of 71588

I fully support the ownership of fully automatic weapons to all law abiding citizens. There is no NEEDS test required - I want one because it would be a hoot to shoot at times - although expensive and rather hard on barrels and as an American that's all the NEED I require. PS: If all military guns should be banned we must include the Remington 870 and the Mossberg 590 shotguns as well. The 1905 SW revolver and every 1911 out there.

To: DanDerr who wrote (57329)	10/18/2012 11:59:02 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 71588

That's a major point that the RwingNutz wont address... the same as the LwingNutz on health care... What can we cover?? Does EVERY"ONE get a new liver??? What can we carry?? Does everyone get a bazooka??? Now both those statements would be ripped apart on their respective news channels. But the point remains... if you want a nationalize heath care system... what ARE you going to cover. If you crow about the 2nd amendment... what armes DOES it cover??? Neither group is willing to man up. Further to your weapons points: <<And to say that military looking weapons should be illegal is to say the Mauser, Springfield, Winchester 1895 or Civil War Musket are Assault Weapons.>> Ummm, that's just a loaded question... like "so when did you last beat your wife?" It's irrelevant. Man up and tell us which weapons YOU think should be allowed and which not. Do you think ALL semi-automatic weapons should be legal??? Just say so!! Oh, and hurry up... you only have a couple more weeks here!! DAK