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: combjelly who wrote (693423)	1/17/2013 3:19:31 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1577162

>> A bolt action rifle against a fully automatic assault rifle is an even match... Great argument. Their guns are better than our guns, so let's just give up ALL the guns.

To: combjelly who wrote (693423)	1/17/2013 7:21:31 PM
From: Brumar89	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577162

Ah now, CJ is saying nationalization of Jewish businesses doesn't count as nationalization because Jews didn't count as German and Austrian citizens in his and the Nazis view.

To: combjelly who wrote (693423)	1/17/2013 9:07:39 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577162

Hi combjelly; Re: "Yeah. A bolt action rifle against a fully automatic assault rifle is an even match." It was the Allies who created the extremely restrictive gun laws in Germany both in 1919 and 1945. But as far as using bolt action rifles against fully automatic assault rifles, that problem doesn't come up in the context of the gun owning public. The privately owned fully automatic weapons are mostly held by members of the public who are quite right wing. Trust me on this. And the publicly owned fully automatic weapons are controlled by the military and police. They're also quite right of center. So there's no need for guns to protect us from the government. That private ownership of semi-auto weapons in the US is for defense against law breakers. They're for protection from very high levels of crime. Most of the time law breakers are not much of a problem. But guns aren't for "most of the time". The US is in difficult economic conditions. These are the kind of conditions that sometimes lead to real violence. The areas in the US that are now high crime also have high levels of (mostly illegal) gun ownership. The basic principle is that it's better to be "tried by 12" than "carried by 6". -- Carl