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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Buy and Sell Signals, and Other Market Perspectives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oblivious who wrote (42420)	12/22/2012 11:50:16 PM
From: Lazarus	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 222062

Thomas Jefferson said : "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." I have no problem with the govt putting restrictions on firearms. Here is my reasoning: There is no way one can protect themselves from the US govt if it goes tyrannical. No assault rifle, ak47, bazooka launcher, or for that matter a MILITARY TANK can protect one from the govt. This isnt the 1700s where the worst they can bring are muskets and cannons. The only way that bearing arms would make us an equal match to suppress a tyrannical govt would be if we all had nuclear suitcases. If some gun toting folks - whether their cause be right or not - are armed to the teeth, they dont stand a penguins chance in hell of defending themselves against the "powers that be" [Think WACO] So, I see no problem with removing and/or strictly regulating certain automatic weapons, assault rifles, etc., from the general public.