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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (60991)	11/13/2000 11:36:11 AM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116764

Second Ammendment Limits? free-market.net The founding fathers probably never anticipated the invention of automatic weapons, armor piercing shells, and the like, but many gun advocates support a person's right to own such things simply because the 2nd amendment doesn't specifically prohibit a private citizen from possessing such weapons and related paraphenalia. So tell me... how far does this right actually go? At what point do gun enthusiasts acknowledge that there must be some sort of limit to what kind of arms a private individual can possess? Surely such a limit must exist. After all, the NRA hasn't lobbied for the abolition of the Nuclear Regulatory Committee's policy which prevents private citizens from owning weapons grade plutonium. I don't think anyone in the NRA supports my right to possess nuclear weapons, even though the constitution supports my right to bear arms, and does not specifically exclude my right to possess weapons of mass destruction. Granted, this example is taking the spirit of the 2nd amendment to a ludicrous extreme, yet I think it illustrates the point that even the most fanatical gun enthusiasts know that the 2nd amendment does not/should not give a private individual the right to possess every conceivable kind of weapon, and that a line must be drawn somewhere.