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: William Marsh who wrote (4085)	8/30/2000 3:50:57 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

Thanks, William, it's been a long time since I've gotten a "Dear Jim." <g> I find your reasoning seriously flawed. It looks to me like you know very well that the 2nd Amendment means that everybody has a right to keep and bear arms, but you don't like for it to mean that, so you're contriving all sorts of spurious arguments so the obvious conclusion can be avoided. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I can't believe that anyone would seriously advance the arguments that you have here, except to put the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. (Throw it in, then stand back and watch the fun.) The Bill of Rights mentions the word "State" three times, I believe. In each instance, it means a "state" like Georgia, or Vermont, not a "state" like the Soviet Union or PRC. When refering to the US Government, the Constitution uses the term "government." I would expect a logical person to apply the same reasoning you used for the 2nd Amendment to other amendments, hence the ludicrous paraphrasing of other "rights" as you seem to be wont to give individuals in their overwhelming desire to support the "state." Your interpretation of the 2nd is that people have a "right to serve the state," not a "right to individual liberty." Perhaps you could restate your position in a manner that makes more sense? jim