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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (10927)	9/23/1998 9:26:00 AM
From: ToySoldier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

(OT) Gerald, Contrary to PMS Withch's statement. The Canadian government is not confiscating any weapons. This is simple fear-mongering on the part of the Canadian Gun Lobbiest. But unlike the Gun Lobbiest in the US, the Canadian lobbiest have almost no backing by the Canadian people - and the Canadian Government knows it. Almost 80% of the Canadian people believe in the law that was passed 3 years ago and takes effect on December 1. Just prior to the protest, the Justice Minister told them that the debate is over and the control law will go into effect on December 1st. But your right about the UN - they would applaud it if all the guns were confiscated - but they arent. Toy

To: Gerald Walls who wrote (10927)	9/23/1998 9:52:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

<OT> Ewwww, Gerald. Take about name calling. With the anti-gun stance of the UN they probably applauded the confiscation law as enthusiastically as they applauded Clinton. That evil UN, the nefarious forerunner of "One World" Government. Next thing you know, they'll be sending in the black helicopters. Never mind that recent administrations, Reagan/Bush as much as Clinton, have found it very convenient to have the UN around many times in the past 20 years. Not so convenient as to have the US pay its back dues, of course. Not to mention the automatic characterization of "confiscation laws", on a matter I wager you no nothing about. I certainly don't want to get into a gun debate, the one thing that could maybe be more inflammatory than the current political situation. Legally, I'll just note that the NRA likes to pay about as much attention to the "well regulated militia" part of the constitution as you like to pay to the context of Clinton's perjury. My understanding is the judicial branch is not quite so narrow in its reading of the 2nd amendment, but legal opinions only count when you agree with them, right? The other thing about guns, they're a public health problem. Gun deaths in the U.S. are about the same order of magnitude as car deaths. But, we get a lot more utility out of our cars, and we don't think much about licensing both vehicles and drivers. Guns, that's something else. Not that I'd advocate any political action, particularly in the current attack dog climate. It's a problem, that's all, and glib rhetoric isn't going to help it in the least. Cheers, Dan.