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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (688805)	12/17/2012 3:32:16 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1578455

"where muskets took almost a minute to reload, etc" it was the top of the line military weapon at the time. that's what the fathers wanted the people to have, to fight against a tyrannical gov like england and you could fire 3 times in a minute

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (688805)	12/17/2012 3:50:26 PM
From: TopCat	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578455

I keep hearing the argument that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to today's environment.....that citizens wouldn't have a chance against the military of the US, etc. etc. etc. If you don't think citizens can be effective against a standing army in this modern era, just look at Syria....or Viet Nam for that matter. I agree that some degree of regulation is appropriate and necessary but sacking the Second Amendment is not the answer.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (688805)	12/17/2012 4:08:21 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1578455

These days, what does the 2nd amendment mean to people? To some, it's the freedom to defend oneself and his or her loved ones, property, and safety with a firearm. To others, it's a license to sell instruments of death and mayhem all over society. Obviously the 2nd amendment calls for regulation; that's just common sense when you're dealing with firearms. But if we want to preserve any semblance of that traditional freedom, we'll have to agree to more regulation. Otherwise, kiss that freedom goodbye. I see no need for ordinary people to be walking around with assault rifles and huge ammo clips. But going after the weapons is problematic on two fronts -- a) Most importantly, it is counterproductive -- actually harmful -- in the effort to reduce this kind of violence. We know that gun control hasn't worked in other places to reduce violence. It would be not unlike the "war on drugs", where the bans became institutionalized regardless of whether it actually improved the situation, creating in the process a misdirection where the focus turned to banning weapons when in fact better solutions could otherwise be found elsewhere. Just as we now focus on the legal aspects of drug abuse rather than on doing things that would actually reduce the problem, we would just be taking away yet another fundamental freedom to no end. b) It does create a slippery slope that over time would carry us further down the road of eroding the Bill of Rights, which is something that needs to be stopped. I understand the knee-jerk reaction, but it seems to me a far more sensible approach is to look at things rationally and analytically.