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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (212095)	12/18/2012 1:15:13 PM
From: Sam	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 544091

When have we ever needed guns per the second amendment. Like fucking never! And we will never need them in that situation.. lol, but Koan, don't you want protection from all the "mobs on your doorstep" or "nuts breaking into your house", like this SI guy does: I hate reading the remarks that semi-auto and "assault weapons" should be banned because they are only good for killing lots of people. Well, yeah. If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the citizenry's ability to protect their homes and families against both their fellow citizens and the State, then firearms capable of "killing lots of people" are exactly what the doctor ordered. I don't want a six-round magazine when the mob is at my doorstep, or I'm in a firefight with a bunch of nuts breaking into my house. I want them OUTGUNNED. This is so obvious it should not need mentioning. As Stan Greenberg and James Carville said, the problem with the Republican is the quality of the inmates-- nationalmemo.com They are bat-shit nuts....

To: koan who wrote (212095)	12/18/2012 1:25:23 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 544091

"Guns should be kept out of schools." Yes, but we're talking about what happens when they're brought into school by a shooter. "And we need strict gun control including outlawing guns that are not for hunting or simple self defense.." Yes, but the guns don't know what they're for, only the shooter does, and our ability to divine what the shooter intends is very limited. "LImit the guns and gun deaths will fall." That's true at some level but the level is far below where we are now. For example, if someone has 10 guns and wants to use a gun in a robbery, you can take up to 9 guns away and he still has the tool. In our society there is about one gun for every man, woman and child in this country. If you don't have one and you want one there is always one for sale. You could cut the number of firearms in this country dramatically and you'd still have guns available to those who want to secure and use them unlawfully. I don't know where the tipping point is where you could say, "we finally reduced gun violence by limiting the availability of guns" but I imagine its far below our society's politically acceptable level of reduction. Ed