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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (36654)	5/2/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

> Lather, you know as well as I do that no court has ever upheld the meaning of the Second Amendment as protecting the right of individuals to possess weapons.< A month ago - an appellate court in Texas did just that. I'll try to find a reference - can't do it today, sorry. >I would note, however, that these weapons are clearly not designed for anything except killing a lot of people all at the same time, and that their existence seems to be what has motivated American police--individually and collectively--to campaign for more restrictive gun laws.< No. It is not the existence of these weapons. In the 20s a citizen could walk into a hardware store and purchase a full-auto Tommy gun - no questions, no paperwork. This did not lead to social collapse. I suggest tthat the alarmist voices in the media are very interested players in this little game. When there is some murder or act of violence on the late news, what is used as the visual icon for the story? A handgun. Usually a Colt or a Beretta - a high-quality gun. There's a sustained undercurrent here - somebody in the glass room wants the viewers to associate the Gun with Violence. Very dishonest. >The teenage years are very difficult; children are impulsive during this period because of developmental factors. Certainly, most reasonable people could agree that arming them to the teeth makes their impulsive urges fatal in ways that fistfights do not. Will your daughter attend high school fully armed? If you look carefully at the rest of your arguments, you are essentially stating that in order to be safe, you must be ready to attack in a lethal manner, so I am wondering how you will handle the whole school thing.< I posted on the Littleton thread regarding thes. School-age kids should not have guns. I agree with the "impulse control" argument. I further laid out that schools should be physical and spiritual safe havens. That is one reason why I am sickened by the Littleton tragedy. Finfd the post and read it; I recommend you do.

To: Grainne who wrote (36654)	5/2/1999 8:46:00 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, <<Lather, you know as well as I do that no court has ever upheld the meaning of the Second Amendment as protecting the right of individuals to possess weapons. >> I beg to differ. Supreme Court decisions until recent times did uphold the right of individuals to be armed (own weapons). It's only recently that this has changed. it has been written in supreme court decisions that people should be armed well enough to be able to resist the government should it become a tyranny. Now that it has though, it is too powerful to resist. The only real deterrent we have to greater tyranny is that there ARE 250 million guns out there. Too many to deal with, thank God. SR