SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Intel Corporation (INTC)
INTC 41.12-6.0%1:44 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Windsock who wrote (144027)9/24/2001 3:35:52 PM
From: Elmer  Read Replies (1) of 186894
 
There is no personal right to bear arms in the 2d Amendment. So said the US Supreme Court.

This simply isn't true. The SC has never made any such ruling. Had they liberals would have long since confiscated all weapons, except those in the hands of criminals and terrorists.

The Amendment contains the qualification of a "well regulated militia. At that time, the US had no standing army and the militia was the people who could be called to form the standing army.
"


The militia was made up of ordinary citizens. The 2nd Amendment also uses the wording "the Right of the People" which always refers to the individual citizens.

The word "arms" used in the 2d Amendment does include nuclear weapons. If you argue that there is an unlimited right to bear arms is a personal right then the argument must support the personal right to bear nuclear weapons.

This certainly does pose a problem because at the time the Constitution was written there wasn't any television or radio and all printed material was hand pressed. Speech was limited to the unamplified, untransmitted human voice yet we have extended the 1st Amendment to emcompass new technology. By what line of reasoning can we extend the 1st without extending the 2nd?

EP
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext