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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tcmay who wrote (144016)	9/24/2001 2:25:37 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

I almost always come down on the side of gun rights and John Locke in a Second Amendment discussion, but if you're hoping that your opponents will come over to your side just through a reading of the Second Amendment, you're wasting your time. The Second Amendment is the most unclear and vague sentence in the entire US Constitution and can be used by both sides to support just about any law or lack thereof.

To: tcmay who wrote (144016)	9/24/2001 2:48:26 PM
From: Windsock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re:"You should read the U.S. Constitution." There is no personal right to bear arms in the 2d Amendment. So said the US Supreme Court. The Amendment contains the qualification of a "well regulated militia". The militia that existed when the 2d Amendment was written no longer exists. At that time, the US had no standing army and the militia was the people who could be called to form the standing army. The best analogy for a well regulated militia today is the Military of the USA, currently including the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, that constitutes an actual standing army. They are well regulated and can -- and actually do -- hold nuclear weapons. The word "arms" used in the 2d Amendment does include nuclear weapons. If you argue that there is an unlimited right to bear arms is a personal right then the argument must support the personal right to bear nuclear weapons. It is also extreme to argue that reasonable regulations on fire arms equals confiscation. People do not need a fully automatic rifle to hunt Bambi. But a person can own an automatic weapon if they comply with ATF regulations and obtain a permit. That is not grabbing guns. How far "reasonable regulation" should go is clearly a political debate where reasonable people can differ. Of course, my view on appropriate regulations is the correct one <g>