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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Roger's 1998 Short Picks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (15094)	11/6/1998 10:23:00 AM
From: Phil(bullrider)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18691

Roger, >>>>>>>>>>>>> But the difference between tobacco and cars is that cars do offer benefits as well as risk to the user. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you are correct that cars offer benefits as well as risk. But would you also not agree that one CHOOSES to use both tobacco and automobiles? In other words, my argument is about ones choice, or freedom of choice. If an adult chooses to abuse his body, who should get to tell him he is wrong? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I would make any weapon which sprays lead at a rapid rate illegal, such weapons go far beyond what is needed for family protection. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who gets to decide the definition of "sprays lead at a rapid rate"? Would you say five rounds a minute is rapid? I could do that with any gun on the market, including a single shot shotgun. I simply don't agree with anyone limiting my choice of protective weaponry. Or for that matter, any of my choices. Have fun, Phil

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (15094)	11/6/1998 12:02:00 PM
From: peter michaelson	Respond to of 18691

Roger: I come down on the anti-heavy artillery side myself, but the original purpose of the right to bear arms is to protect one's family - and one's community and one's freedom - from the government - not criminals. In that case, hand-held assault weapons are not sufficient. Do we have the right to own tanks? We might need them. This is an example of technology outstripping our founding fathers' and mothers' thinking. Back then, everybody could access more or less the same firepower. Let's repeal that darn amendment. Tongue in cheek, peter