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: Sam who wrote (212100)	12/18/2012 1:19:52 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 544095

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. Neither do I; might I suggest radio-controlled claymores placed strategically around the yard?

To: Sam who wrote (212100)	12/18/2012 1:50:44 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 544095

I have to agree that defending yourself against the mob sounds a little crazy. Too many episodes of the Soprano's back to back? That belief alone should set one up for the psych evaluation. Mob obsessions in the arena of paranoids are subordinate only to government agents, aliens and belief that they are Jesus. Unless you live in the country where police response time is long, or you are off by yourself somewhere, the idea of arming is not risk justified. It is fear motivated. That kind of fear is not warranted in most suburban areas. If I lived in a place where there were a lot of home invasions, I might feel differently, but my answer would not be a 100 round magazine and assault weapon but a Remington short barrel pump with shells of increasing sizes of shot, possibly the last round being a slug. Hart to miss with that and you don't have as much risk killing granny or the kids in other rooms.

To: Sam who wrote (212100)	12/18/2012 1:58:53 PM
From: neolib	2 Recommendations Respond to of 544095

What is completely nutty is such individuals have paid no attention to how the world has changed. Full auto guns haven't helped the Taliban against "The State's" use of drones. If the "The State" wants to subjugate individuals, having a few (or a lot) of guns wouldn't help anymore. Waco 2.0 won't be a shootout. It would consist of a drone wacking the wacko when he is stupidly in the clear. So the delusions about the 2'nd Amendment protecting the citizenry from the State is just that: Delusional. IMHO its an example of how a hide bound view of a Constitution makes a mocker of people. Rather than being concerned about a more or less worthless and detrimental 2'nd Amendment, the citizenry should be concerned about how invasive they want to legally let the government become. We are well within the technical range of having the next Apple product be the iGod, which would be a wearable necklace which would analyze your actions and apply a corrective taser jolt to your ass if you misbehave. Should we do such a thing? It would solve a lot of problems. No prisons, no gun violence, no domestic violence, etc. And think of how much fun each new election would be where the party planks would consist of which actions to add or remove from the system ban list?

To: Sam who wrote (212100)	12/18/2012 5:31:08 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 544095

They are bat shit crazy. I just heard 130 dems signed on to ban fast clips. Not one pub did. Dems do not allow crazy people, so they have to go to the Republican party where everyone is Ok when one of their people talks about Obama running for a third term seriously. Or not having a birth certificat-lol. I have lived in the center of my town for 30 years. I never lock my door, except on rare occasions, or the door to my car. And nothing has ever been stolen. But I don't worry much about material things. Two dents in my car I refuse to fix-lol. I figure less chance anyone would want to steal it. Engine runs fine.