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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (2033)	10/10/2000 7:44:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

How can you simultaneously advocate restriction of women's rights to their persons (4th amendment) while claiming an absolute right to something as relatively unnecessary on a daily basis as guns? 1 - I was arguing constitutional rights. The constitution directly mentions the right to keep and bear arms. IT says nothing about abortion. Ideally I would like no abortions, but constituionally it isn't up to the federal government to either ban or forbid the states from banning it. It is properly a matter for the states. I am pro-life but if I was a supreme court judge I would probably have to strike down a federal law banning abortion. It would be a tough call however. My job would be properly to interpet the law (in this case the constitution), not make the law say what I want it to say but on the other hand it is hard to hold valid a law that will allow the deaths of millions. 2 - If I bought a gun I would not be harming any one else. In fact in certain circumstances it would be possible that I could use the gun to protect people and perhaps even save someone's life. Abortion on the other hand is directly harming some one else. Tim