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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (786515)	5/27/2014 7:57:45 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576053

>>If I understand Mazlow correctly, you can't reach the next highest level until you satisfy all the needs on the first level.....if you don't you drop back to the level that you meet.... You are correct as far as you went. I am not sure what you are getting at here. The items listed on the lower levels are not simply checked off and forgotten as they are satisfied, they must continue to be satisfied in order for higher level needs to be addressed. So, yes you drop back to lower levels of concern when a need is being unmet at that lower level. >>Very happy to hear that, (not a gun owner) but you sure as hell seem to be lined up with the gun huggers around here.... I line up with natural human rights as regards to enlightenment philosophy, which is so embedded in our constitution. As I have said before, Jefferson et al skipped ahead with the second amendment because the right to bear arms springs from the natural right to self protection. I wish they had seen the need to qualify the second amendment as born from the natural right to self protection but they didn't. I don't think we would even need a specific right to bear arms if the second amendment had made it clear that we can do whatever is needed to protect ourselves from harm ... up to and including bearing arms as needed. >><i>...and unlike said huggers, I am not paranoid.... I guarantee you engage in self protective activities every day. You take action to protect your way of life, status, finances, relationships, property, and other resources on an on-going basis. Simply selecting a neighborhood where crime is low, choosing a sheltered or gated community with a security service is taking the action to protect yourself in ways the majority of people on earth cannot afford. If you have no need to protect your self from attack, it is because you are able to pay others to do that for you. Having made these choices you feel safe and protected. All of us have unique circumstances which require individual consideration with regard to personal safety and self protection. Your sheltered circumstance suits you just fine but you seem to lack empathy and appreciation for those who do not share your circumstance. In addition it is not rational for you to target conservative gun owners, who are not known for going off on killing sprees. If you would base your argument on the need for self protection, you would see that there are already more than enough laws in place to deal with murdering miscreants. Then you could argue for social action targeting the real causes of violent atrocities, which lies in the heart of every violent criminal but was not the result of acquiring a gun.