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: TimF who wrote (3987)	8/12/2000 4:57:34 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13060

I would say arms refers to hand carried small firearms Ah, but now you're limiting the Constitutional right by defining terms in a limited way. Why aren't stinger missiles "arms"? They can be hand carried. And if you can limit arms by definition, can the government also limit "the press" by saying that only includes newspapers, not magazines and TV? So government can censor TV and magazines all it wants without violating the constitution?? The owner of a property (includeing airplanes and airports) would have a right to keep weapons off their property. Airplanes, okay, since they are owned by the private airlines. But airports are mostly public property, and the 2nd amendment prohibits the government from infringing the right to bear arms. So why do you allow the government to infringe your right to bear arms on public property? After all, if you say they can prohibit your having arms in an airport, you are also admitting that they can prohibit your right to bear arms on any public street or road. So you can have arms in your house (if you can get them there without taking them over any public road) but once there, you can't take them anywhere, including a shooting range. Is that okay? IMO, where we are is that the constitution HAS to be interpreted. It doesn't mean exactly what it says it means. So the problem is, how should it be interpreted. Which is a question of political philosophy, not law.