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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (57183)	2/20/2018 2:00:35 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360688

I won't attempt to put the words in your mouth but one COULD argue... I will say again that I haven't been arguing for or against, merely trying to rigorously think it through. I just don't feel right about forming an opinion until I've done that. As I mentioned, there is no one arguing that a ban would be a undesirable other than the 2nd Amendment thing and the efficacy thing. You haven't come up with anything. I suspect that there isn't anything. So, we have this issue hanging over us. Half the country wants them banned. Whether that is an apt approach to the problem or not, it has become a thing and they aren't going to shut up about it. So in the interest of thoroughness, it seems necessary to consider just doing it to get it out of the way. It would not be expensive to implement, which nullifies the efficacy concern, and there's something to be said for some peace and quiet. And then there's the off chance that it might work, which would be a big benefit, or at least inform the discussion. Just trying to vet that notion. I've argued many times against the predilection to do "something, and this is something." But this may be an exception.