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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stan s. who wrote (924)	8/28/1998 12:50:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

By the way Dwight....my reference to nuts doesn't apply to you....as far as I can tell anyway...(:o Thanks, Stan. broad grin breaking out as I re-holster my revolver ;-) LOL..that was just a joke now... Like you said though, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to ask lawabiding people to give up their guns when criminals have a ready blackmarket available. I'm not sure what the solution is exactly, but taking guns away from people who are law-abiding good citizens isn't going to cut gun-crime for the obvious reason: law-abiding good citizens aren't out there shooting people. If a man will shoot his spouse, he will stab her too, sad and depraved as that is. And if the drunken man gets into an argument with his "friend" and shoots him, he will stab him too. The problem with the State of the Union is that people no longer restrain themselves, and give in to feelings. People often cite Great Britain's and other European countries' strict gun bans, and point to that as the way to go. But unfortunately America isn't Great Britain: Our society is much more violent and filled with criminals of all stripe. I guess freedom attracts criminals and other ne'er-do-wells as well as good citizens.

To: stan s. who wrote (924)	8/28/1998 5:00:00 AM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 67261

<<<I no longer argue the gun issue. Why? 'Cause you guys won.>>> How's it feel to argue an issue you lost over 200 years ago? <<<Years ago I used to argue the point....but no group is better organized or carries more sway with the politicos than the NRA.>>> Thank you. <<<You guys might as well have written the book.>>> We did. <<<It's to the point now that I easily understand the "perceived" need to have a gun.....as well as the sense of freedom it seems to bring certain people. But the arguments....come on, they were always specious.>>> "Yeah, the founding fathers...what rubes." <<<No one envisioned back then the firepower, the massive loss of life that could occur within seconds....quite a difference between the powder, and long barrel musket.....and today's automatics.>>> Yeah, getting hit with a musket ball was pure joy. <<<"a well armed militia"....wasn't that the point........not every crazebo in the country.>>> No. READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS! It says nothing about a well armed militia. <<<But hell, now that the nuts have 'em we ALL need 'em. Not to mention the multitude in the hands of every street punk>>> You are catching on....slowly. <<<As I said you won...congratulations...I guess.>>> No problem. Have a cigar. <<<By the way Dwight....my reference to nuts doesn't apply to you....as far as I can tell anyway>>> No, that is reserved for those who disagree with wallace.