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 (698648)	2/12/2013 5:16:13 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

There is no equivalency Yes there is and I have shown how the conditions (fear of consequences) justifies the desire to have personal protection in each situation. The outcomes are not equal except that in both cases having personal protection when needed will very likely make the difference in being harmed or not. I know you get that. We can quibble over whether or not sex is like gun violence but that is silly, we both know the difference. Feel free if you think you must though. We know that it is basic human nature for one to have animus toward another and that with the desire for freedom we can get people to form a cooperative peaceful society. However, it has never been the case that individuals within society will not be prone to violence and that other individuals need to be prepared to defend themselves. The state has never and will never be able to protect the innocent and peaceful from the angry and violent. The state is more likely to oppress than to serve when the power of individuals to protect themselves has been removed. The credibility of the current gun control politics is very low. On this thread, numerous postings have demonstrated the vast majority of dangerous people, criminals for example, don't acquire guns according to existing gun control regulations. If you really want something done you would be willing to focus on that fact. But you wont and that is where you lose credibility. tejek, you, and others wont, which is very telling. Instead you just resort to posting some atypical news of a shooting, which accomplishes nothing. The conservatives who don't want the government restricting them are making the case that their interests are for personal protection. You and the other anti-gun posters ignore all the information which shows the danger presented by criminal gun holders. Instead you insist the conservative position makes everyone more at risk. Conservative gun owners are, with some rare exceptions, decent law abiding protective types and you know it. Your general agenda doesn't wash. It only plays out as petty partisanism, which is never a good idea for long term societal benefits.