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 : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Pitera who wrote (13459)	12/16/2012 10:26:08 PM
From: The Ox	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33421

The Constitution protects the right to bear arms, similar to the right of free speech or to peaceably assemble. We have many limitations on the right to assembly and quite a few on free speech. Why shouldn't we have a few more limitations on the right to bear arms? Many (if not most) assume the writers were simply reiterating the old English concept that the Crown (see Govt in the US) doesn't have the right to disarm their opposition or those who the Crown views as having different opinions. They also were reiterating the right of people to defend themselves. Most people understand why the writers of the Constitution didn't say you have the right to bear cannons! With this in mind, do we have the right to bear missiles? Bear armoured tanks? Similarly, if you can afford to buy a nuclear weapon, do you have the right to own one in the USA? We can not (and should not) try to "rationalize" an irrational person and their actions. But where do we limit the 2nd amendment so that irrational people can't hide behind it? Or even worse, allow this same lack of limitation to provide these "disturbed" people with the tools of destruction?