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: Chuzzlewit who wrote (36746)	5/3/1999 2:14:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Ooooh, juicy stuff. Allow me only a limited response for now. >Certainly nobody would argue that the 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to own an H-bomb (for legitimate duck hunting, of course!)< Oh come on, Chuzz. US law defines the arms in question as devices firing inert projectiles ("bullets"). Thus artillery or cannon throwing pointy little bombs are not covered by the Amendment. Play fair. >My (limited) knowledge indicates that the 2nd Amendment refers only to militias (the National Guard). < The miliria and the National Guard are NOT one and the same. Semantics. The US Code defines the "militia" as "any able-bodied man between 18 and 50". Betcha they'll rewrite to include the ladies sometime soon. >Private ownership of machine guns has been banned for some time< False. Machine guns and suppressed weapons are Class 3 guns. A special Federal tax stamp (with attendant registration) is required. Otherwise the only impediment to my owning a Browning is ten thousand dollars and applicable State laws. No new machine guns are being added to the market; this much is true. But there is an active market in existing "grandfathered" machine guns. There are tens of thousands of registered Class 3 machine guns in private ownership in the USA, and the number that has been used criminally is a bit of an eye opener. Zero. ------ My intent here is not to burst forth as an aggrieved camo-wearing neo-rightist. I'm an ordinary Joe living in California. I am politically a centrist. I am startled however to see how much incorrect "common knowledge" about guns and gun ownership has been instilled into aware, intelligent, thoughtful members of US society. It's a PR war, and the gun owners have lost it.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (36746)	5/3/1999 3:15:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 108807

>Let me now refine my hypothetical: suppose the government pays every registered gun owner the fair market value for his hand guns, and we now see a 50% reduction in gun-related deaths, would you still oppose gun control? If yes, suppose the figure were 100% reduction, how would you feel? < I have never opposed gun control (meaning reasonable regulation of the way guns are owned and used). I do oppose gun bans and confiscations disguised as "gun control". I dislike the euphemism. For a 50% reduction, I would say No. I'd classify that as a policy failure. For a 100% reduction - I believe that is flatly impossible. The thugs and loons will not turn in their guns. Let's pretend anyway. I would turn in my handguns in exchange for laws - a Constitutional amendment in plain modern English - that allow me to own, keep and operate my rifles in perpetuity. Furthermore my ownership of these weapons should not be taxed, and my family members (or a suitable designee if all my kids are on Haldol) should be able to inherit the guns upon my death. If the USA guaratees me the ownership and use of my rifles, shotguns and carbines in sport, hunting and defense - and rescinds the ban on so-called "assault weapons" which really aren't such, then I would seriously consider abandoning my handguns.