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: TimF who wrote (5610)	8/1/2001 2:09:57 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

and if you follow the reasoning of US vs Miller then people should have a legal right to own fully automatic rifles and perhaps machine guns while single shot 22 pistols would probably be unprotected. That's how I read it...I was actually searching for someone that could explain to me why I was wrong, but then US vs. Emerson came out. But given that decision on it's face, I think you come to a reasonable conclusion that the Court in 1939 would have called the 2nd a collection right vs. an individual right. Re: a poorly decided case. I've tried to examine the references and the logic of US vs. Miller and there isn't anything that I can find that indicates that they got to that decision without thought or without a solid supporting argument. Ignore the specfic decision and consider the historical references and the logic. Where's a flaw? What did they miss or where did they go a stray in the logic? Perhaps the only "missing" item is "tyranny", but I can pull related historical documents on the Bill of Rights, sic Madison's address to Congress, that states quite clearly that government tyranny was not a driving issue for the Bill of Rights. So that might not be a missed point jttmab jttmab