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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (4260)	7/8/2001 3:44:24 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

...the primary conflict is over how best to defend the Second Amendment That would be of interest, i.e., what are the options? But we know a good communicator when we see one, and we elected Charton Heston to an unprecedented fourth term. I've heard Heston a few times in commercials/ads. Commercials are limited in their time allotted, but I found Heston not doing much more than throw out slogans. I'm not very keen on that form of communications. But I do acknowlege that commericials tend to encourage that approach. A couple of years ago, I did some more a extensive look into the 2nd amendment than I do now. Specifically I was looking at court cases that I thought were 2nd amendment, e.g., challenges to the Brady Bill. Something struck me. None of the cases/challenges were ever on 2nd amendment grounds; they were always on States Rights. A made that comment on a pro-2nd amendment thread. Of course, I was told what a complete idiot I was and throw a half-dozen 2nd amendment cases. I went through the effort of researhing every one of those cases and all but one was a challenge on States Rights. The last case, I could never find any record of. I reported the findings back to the thread, with links, and promptly told I was wrong. It's tough to continue any sort of a dialogue. The ol' open mind problem. I did take special attention to the last paragraph in: washingtonpost.com A federal judge threw out the charges against Emerson last year, ruling that "a textual analysis of the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms." The case is on appeal. That's interesting on two counts. A lower court is not supposed to overturn a higher court. If US vs. Miller does put forward a collective right vs. an individual right, then the lower court should not have made the ruling that it did. [BTW: I think most agree that the collective right is the correct interpretation of US vs. Miller; some question whether US vs. Miller was the correct decision. They might exist, but I've never been able to find a paper that suggests that US vs. Miller is interpreted to mean an individual right]. The second point of intersest was the phrase...a textual analysis of the Second Amendment.... My reaction to that phrase .... What the hell does that mean? Is that how the lower court got around US vs. Miller, with a textual analysis? Something I need to look into on Emerson. jttmab