Sun, Dec 28, 2014, 9:15 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation Message Board

  • shrewddude60 shrewddude60 Jan 27, 2013 6:33 AM Flag

    Minus the myriad conspiracies postured here I find that protecting the 2nd Amendment is at the heart of all who post

    here. Good for you. You swayed a liberal. I'm struck by one question. The 2nd amendment, as are all amendments is not, are not absolute;ie-yelling fire in a theater, the right to own,possess certain firearms,ie. fully automatic, sawed off shotguns. My question then is when an absolute right is impeded upon by legislation or judicial interpretation, when does the newly impaired right become acceptable to the general populace----hence the slippery slope paradigm. Perhaps the greater question when rights are subjected to legislative or judicial review the qesttion of trueness must also be tested. In the present case of AR type bans I do not believe the trueness factor passes the test--ban prevents future shootings. It rankles me that it is on it's face arbitrary and capricious in scope. My takeaway is simple---no ban--back to pricing SWHC

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Well man, what you just said makes a huge point (if you realized what I picked up on.) Which is that Americans better get their heads out of their collective backsides and quit supporting either the R's or the D's.

      IMO both parties are in place to divide people who would normally agree on most issues. Sure, we may disagree on things, but ones party alignment usually makes one classify someone with an opposing viewpoint as an absolute enemy. Someone who cannot be bargained with.

      So basically what we end up with is approximately 50% of the people fighting 50% of the people. Even when in most instances 60% of the people would mostly agree on things. Which distracts and diminishes the power of the people. Which ultimately puts the heads of government in charge.

      Think about it. Usually most level headed people can agree to a certain point about things regardless of party. Only once party is introduced do they disagree. Seriously, take 30% of the common sense folks from each party and you have a 60% majority that could kick the corrupt out of government and put people in that would work for more than their spot on the nations money tree.

      I was once a loyal Republican in the past. Those days are over. I just cannot support the R's playing stupid to preserve their own positions of power anymore. R or D, they are all the same. And neither one of them will stand up to the corruption that takes advantage of every citizen. The D's will make demons out of people, but take and give the money from their demons as soon as nobody is watching. And the R's will play dumb to ensure none of the structure changes. It's all a game made to take advantage of the American citizen.

      I don't trust even the Republicans to stand up for our rights to own guns anymore. All it will take is one backroom deal amongst cronies for them to vote on the side of their own pocketbook. And it will get ugly in this country if that happens. That is why it is so important for us to stop this runaway train before it gets nasty. It will be a lot easier to just vote these fools out from both parties than what we are headed towards. Let's just hope people start waking up.

      Sorry for the rant. But people better start to wake up before it is too late.

    • The line between the absolute and retriction on those rights is already clearly defined. We have the right to free speech, but not the right to use speech to demonstrably harm others. i.e. your example of falsely screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. Similiary, we have an absolute right to own and bear arms, but not the right to murder, rob or any other crime, whether using a firearm, knife, club, fist, shoe bomb, etc.

      • 2 Replies to declanaidan
      • I am in total agreement with you, however I have a question. As shrewd mentioned about not being able to own certain firearms such as full-automatics and sawed off shotguns. My question is. What would stop the government making their list of so called assault weapons,and lump them in with the auto's and sawed off shot guns,making these illegal also. Would making us register our assault weapons and paying an annual tax be against the second amendment? Is not being able to own a sawed of or full auto against the second amendment? The right to bear arms, should be any gun............... Any gun, be it a muzzle loader or a full auto german grease gun. Right What scares me is the word Amend? To me it means,"can be changed" and that is the gray area that frightens me.Thank you.....sorry more than one question.

      • Although the right to bear arms is already hindered by disallowing ownership of fully automaticweapons, sawed off shotguns, etc. My point is at some point in time due either legislative action or judicial interpetation virtually every right has been reigned in from the proverbial " absolute right" conversation being bickered about. Personally, I do not feel the current gun ban push meets the test allowing for further contraction of the 2nd. Absolute rights simply do not exist-never have

9.91-0.18(-1.78%)Dec 26 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.