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: The Street who wrote (4079)	8/30/2000 12:56:11 PM
From: William Marsh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13060

Thank you, Mr. Street, You and Mr. Hodgkin gave, I think, the same answer: strictly speaking, any law outlawing possession of weapons is unconstitutional. Mr. Hodgkin thinks this is mitigated by judicial interpretation. You think, I take it, that the majority of laws are unconstitutional. Let me ask you then: If we are routinely and systematically ignoring the constitution in all our law making, do you then believe that the current government is illegitimate? Let me ask Mr. Hodgkin: If the 2nd is open to interpretation, and assuming we rule out extreme views at both ends (all weapons should be legal and all weapons should be banned), then are not stricter gun control laws constitutionally very much on the table? Finally, as to your question Mr. Street: Why is the second in the constitution? I think I have given my answer: Individuals have a right to bear arms so they can serve in the militia, so they can protect the state. I understand that many people on the board think I am wrong and misinformed or worse, but, interpreting the text is the most simple and straightforward manner, this is what it seems to say. I will confess I also like this interpretation because I agree that a citizen army is very important.