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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (134309)	3/7/2001 4:30:54 PM
From: Edward W. Richmond	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574729

To All. I am a bit confused. What happened to the direction of this discussion? I had expected to have discussion related to the merits and demerits of AMD. As a Canadian, I don't have very refined opinions on most US policy. Best regards, Ed

To: Windsock who wrote (134309)	3/7/2001 5:12:57 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574729

There have been a lot of court cases and ruling that there is NOT a personal right to bear arms under the 2d Amendment. No there has not. There was one case where the 2nd amendment issue was not allowed to be brought up (because it was not raised in trial or appeal) and there was another were the supreme court was concerned about wether the guns in questions where militia weapons but nothing was said that indicates no personal rights. The militia as it existed in the 18th century no longer exists. The militia of that time was the standing army and is roughly equivalent to the US Armed Forces of today. The milita of the 18th century was neither federally funded nor a standing army. There was a standing army and thier were milita units they where not the same thing. Milita members would bring their own weapons when called up. Under US law every able bodied, male, non-felon citizen is part of the milita so even if the right was limited to milita members it would still cover most men (and some women as well, but most women would not be covered). See United States Code, Title 10, Section 311(a): The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except [for felons], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States... Also... "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved militia force or reserve militia of the United States as well as the States; and, in view of this perogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintianing the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government." (Supreme Court, Presser v. People of Illinois.) The part in the 2d Amendment about a "well regulated militia" is inconvenient and too hard to write with crayons. The part about a well regulated milita doesn't specify anything. It does not forbid or demand anything. If it was to be applied as an active clause in law it would be meaningless. It is a statement of opinion and a statement apparently intended to add rhetorical support to the active clause of the sentance. Can you think of any where else in US law where "the right of the people" is interpreted to mean the right of the government? Anyone out there in favor of the personal right to keep nuclear weapons and a few short range missiles? These are "arms" too. I would say arms in this context would apply to hand held individual weapons. This to me is the only obviously ambigous part of the amendment. It would not be unreasonable to interpret "arms" as including any weapon. (It would however be unreasonable IMO to actually allow private ownership of nuclear weapons.) Tim