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: bentway who wrote (688644)	12/16/2012 9:16:41 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573714

There's really no reason anyone except the military or the police should ever have more than a six round clip - and I say that just to accommodate revolvers. Let's make anyone running around with more than a six rounds in a SINGLE clip subject to arrest and weapon seizure and forfeiture. I'll bet the police would support such a law. No hunter should need more than a six round clip. What if there comes a time that citizens need to stand up against their government?

To: bentway who wrote (688644)	12/17/2012 12:37:33 AM
From: Bilow	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573714

Hi bentway; Re those 6-round clips and revolvers. There was a time when the US didn't have any gun that held more rounds than a 6-shooter (and well, some rare 8-shooters). At that time the death rate due to homicide was far far higher than it is today. One way that might work would be to simply ban ownership of guns and ammunition and end production. You'd have to also ban ownership of these weapons by the police and army. Otherwise criminals would get them from police and army, of course. Of course you'd have to get this to happen globally for it to work. Maybe the New World Order could do it. It's not like this hasn't been tried before. The Japanese did exactly this. The island had essentially no firearms when Perry visited around 1850. Of course it was (and remains) a police state where the police have full powers to search anybody anywhere at any time for any reason and all evidence (legally obtained or not) is suitable for use in court. Not that it's needed, torture is so common that 95% of criminal cases end with confession. Okay Japan doesn't have big game hunting. I guess the US would still have deer hunting so we'd have to allow ownership of bows. Or we could get rid of the excess deer population by poisoning them. One cool thing about banning guns is that it would make knives and swords more respected again. With a gun, any fool can blow you away but knives require a certain amount of strength and skill. A world without guns is a man's world. Without a weapon, most female police officers would be unable to arrest a lot of male suspects. -- Carl P.S. I guess what I'm trying to point out here is that a US with no guns is not likely to be a liberal utopia. Picking up all the guns is what a police state does. Police states require police powers. Read the wikipedia article on the Japanese police: en.wikipedia.org As far as comparing the US to the European countries, well, after the fascists got rid of the "undesirables" in Germany between 1933 and 1945, their crime rates were spectacularly low. Right now US prisons contain 25% of the world's population of prisoners, even though the US only has 5% of the world's population. We're not a low crime country like Germany was, after the war.