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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (696)	8/6/1998 4:12:00 PM
From: Lone Star	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Michelle can answer for herself, but it is possible to have mixed emotions re: second amendment. I don't buy the NRA stance, but on the other hand resonsible adults should be allowed to have registered sane guns, sane guns being hunting weapons and even small handguns for personal protection. Semi-automatic and the like, come on , who needs that? There is no easy pat answer to this issue in my opinion.

To: DMaA who wrote (696)	8/6/1998 4:20:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 13994

OK I admit it. Im a gun-o-phobic because I dont think violent offenders should be able to get out of prison, make a pit stop at their local gun shop (which is probably frequented by other ex-prisoners and a bunch of wackos straight out of a Quentin Tarantino movie), pick up a gun, and abduct a 10 yr old kid living in a town 100 miles away. And since I dont care for libel either, I guess you would label me a free-speech-phobic? You see, I believe there are limits to both free speech and the right to bear firearms. Then again, I dont live a state where people think attaching horns on their chevy truck is cool. Nor do I live in a state where leadership looks the other way when male cadets light 1st year female cadets on fire. The South....its like a whole other country, huh?

To: DMaA who wrote (696)	8/6/1998 5:12:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

One thing has always bothered me about 2nd amendment supporters. The 2nd amendment makes no limitations on the definition of "arms." One interpretation is that it covers any arms in existence at the time the Amendment was written, in which case I'm all for it. You can have all the musket loaders you want. The other interpretation is that it applies also to arms unknown at the time it was written but developed since. In that case, does the amendment allow me to have my own atomic bomb, my own fully equipped combat jets, my own M-1 Abrams Tank, my own flamethrowers, in my suburban house? If not, why not? But the NRA always folds on this and admits that the feds can control atomic weapons, machine guns, and other fully military arms (which are just the weapons a citizen militia would need to beat back government oppression). How can the NRA argue that the 2nd amendment protects the right to bear semi-automatic weapons but not the right to bear frag grenades and atom bombs???