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: Lazarus who wrote (42424)	12/23/2012 9:29:49 AM
From: briskit	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 222096

The Need Argument (Don't need, in this case) is a good exercise in how to view government's roles. Let's make a list of all the things "we don't need." That's one long list!! Pajamas, for instance. I don't like 'em, especially on the person I sleep with. I say Gov should ban em. PJs impede my progress, cramp my style. Ah, but PJs don't kill people, now do they? Let's ban things people don't need but that can kill people. That's a long list too. What about the top 2%? They don't need all that extra money. It doesn't kill people either. The govt, democrats and statists say the 2% should not keep the money they don't really need. WE THE PEOPLE NEED that money. OK, we're not sure if we need it, but we want it and can say we will use it for really wonderful things. Besides, It's not fair for them to have it if we can find a way to say we need it. We're not sure who needs it, but The Govment needs it so they can, uh, keep, uh, so they can keep us from getting ahold of things we don't need, that's what. And give those things to someone somewhere else, for some dumazz reason. (I'm starting to have fun now). These need and fairness arguments are not in the constitution. The founding documents protect us (supposedly) from others' greed, nosiness, and indiscretions--especially once they have power over us. Need and fairness are just weak, poorly thought-out excuses for coercion. Absent logic and reason, people resort to 'need,' and 'fairness.' Those arguments are the last resorts of charlatans. When you hear them, run. They are 3rd grade, and 3rd rate arguments. The government is l-i-m-i-t-e-d. Not we the people. But it's the government that has no limits today. No limits on its appetites, on its undiscipline, and seems to have no limits on its supply of ignorant followers who are ready to concede to a handful of power-hungry, government-constituent do-gooders. BAH, HUMBUG, lol. Merry Christmas everyone. I'm talking my daughters into getting CHLs for Christmas. Two of them are teachers. One is an engineer. I trust them to make good decisions. This conversation should be on a political thread. Not here. Especially at Christmas!! I looked twice to see if I was on the right thread! Maybe I'll still delete it and re-post somewhere more appropriate. Ah, hell, do you really NEED me to???

To: Lazarus who wrote (42424)	12/23/2012 11:46:59 AM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 222096

Yeah, I agree the nut jobs won't have a chance. Training, newer weapons, body armor, etc. are all better for the military. I actually think this is probably good but we might want to change the constitution from "right to bear arms" to right to a pistol for self defense and a rifle for hunting with bullets that have individual serial numbers" to be honest how we no longer have the right to protect ourselves from tyranny. The best protection against tyranny is to cut spending. Otherwise, the government will eventually have to seize every thing we own via taxation or massive inflation. As for Australia. Isn't their DNA base criminals kicked out of England? It is possible this skews the results in favor of removing guns. I read somewhere that Switzerland issues rifles to every adult for national defense and they don't have gun issues like we do in the US. I think Israel is another well armed country without our issues. I have no doubt death from gun suicide and accidental shootings would go down and those are two reasons I don't have a gun in my home but I see that as social Darwinism..