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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (688673)	12/16/2012 9:48:59 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1573712

GOP lawmaker wishes Sandy Hook principal was armed with assault rifle... GOP lawmaker wishes Sandy Hook principal was armed with assault rifle...

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (688673)	12/16/2012 10:56:01 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573712

>> Do you sincerely believe that our government would be allowed to evolve into such a state that a majority of its population would want to take up arms against it? Being honest, yes, I do. I think it is very naive to assume otherwise.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (688673)	12/17/2012 1:23:45 AM
From: Bilow	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573712

HI J_F_Shepard; Re: "(1) Do you sincerely believe that you and your fellow gun nuts could overthrow the government? (2) Do you sincerely believe that our government would be allowed to evolve into such a state that a majority of its population would want to take up arms against it? (3) Do you think that your shotguns and AR15's would be anything but a pain in the ass to the US military?????" You're completely confused here. (1) Yes, the gun nuts could overthrow the government. In fact, it's been done before, at least for several years and several states. Find a history book that goes back to 1860 to find out more. (2) The basic fact of "democracy" is "majority rule". That means that the majority gets to tell the minority what to do. In the case of guns, if 51% of the voters decide that they should be illegal it can happen. It might take a while because you have to elect people, get new Supreme Court members, etc., but yes, 51% of the US population can tell 49% how to live their lives. This is not just true about guns, it's also true about abortion, spanking, gay rights, premarital sex, child pornography, genetically modified foods, etc. It's the intrinsic nature of democracies that majorities get to tell minorities how to live their lives. Get used to it. For the case of guns, the gun owning population is a minority in the country. (3) In asking about shotguns and AR-15s against the US military you're making a very basic mistake. Very basic. You should go read those history books and find out how things were sorted out in 1860. The US military is a red state military and in a civil war, it will fight on the side of the red states. A major reason why it took so long for the far better armed North to beat the much smaller South was that the South took the cream of the US military. Robert E. Lee, West Point, class of 1829. For the details, see: en.wikipedia.org Not that there would have to be much fighting. The concept that a bunch of blue state atheists, in fear of their lives and "loathing the military", are going to disarm the extremely well armed and enthusiastic red states, even without the assistance of the US military, is ridiculous. Never bring a knife to a gun fight. Are Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming and Missouri red states? Do you really think New York City is going to look pretty going up against this? en.wikipedia.org And by the way, I've seen various claims on the part of leftists that the blue states are responsible for most of the technology in the US. This is true to an extent but not true in practice. For example, California is definitely a blue state. This is because the high population cities vote Democratic. But high tech engineers do not generally like to live in cities. They live in suburbs. Those suburbs vote Republican. It's not just that the US military is Republican. The people who design the weapons are Republicans too. ------------------------------------------------ So what could happen? Of course it's utterly impossible that the state of Texas would ban guns. It would have to be a Federal law. And the local authorities in red states would not possibly enforce those laws (except where it suited them). Then the feds could declare the States in violation of the Law but a lot of good it will do them. Local police officers far far outnumber federal police officers. For example, there are 765,000 local police officers. The number of people employed by BATF (including other than officers sworn to uphold the law) is under 10,000. The FBI has 36,000 people. If the local police won't enforce it, the Feds aren't going to even try. A great precedent for this is the status of marijuana in Colorado and Washington State. Against Federal Law but not enforced. So no, the US probably isn't going to end up with a civil war because of firearms. -- Carl

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (688673)	12/17/2012 11:33:33 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573712

Blue Social Model Driving Banks (and Their Taxes) out of NYC New York remains the hub of the nation’s financial industry, but over the past few years, the city has been losing ground to a collection of cities across the country, including Salt Lake City, Columbus, and St. Louis. As the Wall Street Journal notes, the reasons are all too familiar: Banks are fleeing the high taxes, high cost of living, and endless red tape of the city for greener pastures elsewhere: Smaller cities around the nation have emerged as unlikely hives of financial-services hiring, thanks to lower wages, municipal-tax incentives and the misfortunes of older hubs that are home to companies ravaged by the 2008-2009 financial crisis. The beneficiaries are spread across the U.S., according to an analysis of data by The Wall Street Journal. In St. Louis, the 19th-largest U.S. metropolitan area, securities-industry employment surged 85% between January 2007 and September 2012 to a recent 12,190, according to figures compiled by Moody’s Analytics. New York lost 9% of its jobs in the securities, commodities, asset-management and fiduciary-trust areas over the same period, leaving it with 195,000. A financial sector with more geographic balance is almost certainly a good thing for the country, but it’s bad news for New York, where the city’s recent revival has been financed largely through taxes on businesses and employees of the city’s high-powered banking sector. New York has managed to pursue blue policies longer than many of its peers due to its cash cow Wall Street banks. If these banks leave, their tax revenue will leave with them, and the city’s current policies will begin to look much less affordable. But then again, it is these very policies that are causing the banks to leave in the first place. If it weren’t for big banks, there could be no Big Blue. blogs.the-american-interest.com