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: Alighieri who wrote (697139)	2/4/2013 11:02:14 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578071

>> but how many of the 1.8M that were denied would have resulted in loss of life? I don't know whether any lives would have been saved; I don't automatically assume they would. If someone is truly determined to get a gun this isn't going to stop them, or even slow them down. They're simply going to go get one illegally. And how many lives have been given up to achieve and maintain the basic freedoms we have today? Does that count for anything? Our track on preventing people from having items they're determined to have is worse than abysmal; it has been consistently counterproductive. More importantly, however, it is not a good thing to have government bureaucrats arbitrarily denying people their constitutional rights. Frankly, I don't even agree with some of the premises of the background checks -- I don't believe a felony conviction, for example, should be grounds for denial, unless it was for a felony that involved weapons. If a person is convicted of white-collar crime, nonviolent drug "crimes", or other nonviolent felonies, I don't see the connection. There is certainly no indication denials for such things save lives. Individual rights are just too hard to come by to be forking them over to federal agencies willy-nilly. I took Prozac for several years to treat mild depression. This is part of my "electronic medical record". Should that prevent me from owning a weapon? Some bureaucrat might feel that it should. The DEA is currently demanding WARRANTLESS access to electronic medical records in Oregon in its insane quest to root out evil drug users. How long before ATF will do the same? When you consider the rights given up by allowing an incompetent government to get in the middle of your personal life, for me, it isn't a sensible trade. I respect the fact that others have different views; but people ought not to allow themselves to be railroaded by an incompetent, arrogant president into giving up basic rights.