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: Lane3 who wrote (57309)	2/21/2018 11:19:06 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361091

>> when he framed the disaaffected cohort as hobbyists. Perhaps. Although, self-protection is a protected right under the Constitution and some would argue that semiautos are necessary to be able to adequately protect oneself. But AFAIK, status as a "hobbyist" doesn't change one's Constitutional protections. So, there is that. Why one wants to own a gun is probably not a material factor. Just as in the Heller decision DC's limitations were a bridge too far (to be done without a constitutional amendment), I think it will require the same to ban these guns. Maybe not, but there will be a Supreme Court case before it is settled.

To: Lane3 who wrote (57309)	2/21/2018 12:30:14 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 361091

I am not assuming the ban would be effective in stopping all of the shootings. There is evidence that it could stop some. Probably not all. There is some evidence that we might have traded serial killers for mass killers. Which isn't a great trade off if you ask me. However, I do categorically reject the idea that we must transform all of society, give up the idea that we can assemble in groups without body searches and strict security. That we must live in fear of someone deciding to open fire at any moment. That we have to give up the idea of being able to move freely. And that nothing can be done but to become a population under siege.