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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (3633)	5/14/2000 1:10:00 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13062

Which Supreme Court case leads you to believe the debate totters? Original gun "laws" were not laws, but taxes, and confiscatory ones at that. Miller was "shot down" in lower courts but was a one-sided case in the Supreme Court because Miller was dead and his co-defendant nowhere to be found. Sawed-off shotguns or shotguns with short barrels "were" military weapons, contrary to what the lawyers for the government said...they lied and the Justices believed them. Just admit you value safety over freedom. That is where the debate really is and you certainly have a right to your opinion. However "rights" in the Bill of Rights can't be given away by you or any group, they aren't given, just protected, inherent, not granted.

To: chalu2 who wrote (3633)	5/14/2000 3:31:00 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 13062

I've read all of these arguments and, again, the reason this debate endlessly totters on is that the Courts do not agree. Then the courts are wrong. Of course it matters little that they are wrong because wrong or right their opinion is what counts in a practical sense. Actually the supreme court has stated in a couple of cases that the rights "of the people" are the rights of individual citizens not collective rights. It really is incorrect to say the courts do not agree. It would be more correct to say the courts have had different interpetations at different times in different cases. Why not support a Constitutional amendment relating to the bearing of arms that would settle the matter--either it would be adopted, or it would be voted down. If it was voted down it would not settle the matter just as if a new amendment stregthening free speech protections was voted down it would not mean that free speech is not protected by the first amendment. Tim