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.

Politics : The 2nd Amendment-- The Facts........ -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (1077)	5/4/2000 10:46:00 PM
From: ManyMoose	Respond to of 10167

The federal government has undergone a proliferation of armed police forces. To mention a few: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Park Service, US Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, General Services Administration, and of course all the law enforcement agencies like the U.S. Marshal's Service. It's a simple matter to unify all of these police forces under one command. When that happens, it will be easy to see how large the federal police force really is. So what's the relevance of this to the second amendment? I guess we'll find out if any more Cuban kids wash up on shore. George F. Will asks this question in a recent editorial about 'Elian.' << Is "dynamic entry" justified whenever the government has some business to conduct with an American household and suspects that occupants of the household may be exercising their Second Amendment right to own a gun? Or was there something else that particularly alarmed authorities about Lazaro Gonzalez' little house, which bristled with ... toys? >> See the rest of his column at sacbee.com

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (1077)	5/14/2000 10:55:00 AM
From: The Street	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10167

Gun MORON Alert: <<The Second Amendment does not, at least in the view of our federal courts, provide a general right to individuals to own arms. It is poorly drafted, but could have said: "The right of individual citizens to bear arms shall not be abridged." It doesn't, but contains language about "the right of the people", and a "well-regulated militia." Parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights deal with relations between the federal government and "the people", and often the context shows that "the people" is a synonym for "the states." If this was how the drafters viewed the complicated language of the Second Amendment, then what the 2nd Amendment means is that the federal government cannot ban well-regulated state militias. Individuals with guns in their dressing tables do not equate with well-regulated state militias. << Message 13707501