SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Elmer who wrote (144060)9/25/2001 4:32:21 PM
From: Windsock  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
Elmer - Re:"No doubt you can find a liberal source that would like to spin it that way but it ain't so."

The real question is whether the 2d Amendment of the Constitution, as interpreted by the federal Courts, provides a personal right to bear arms absent any relation to "a well regulated militia". The Court in United States v Miller says there is absolutely no such right.

The author you cited totally ignores the conclusion in Supreme Court cases that are directly on point and opposite to his view. The author makes light of the fact that Miller is directly contrary to his conclusion: "Only in United States v. Miller[329] has the High Court addressed the Second Amendment, and even then only in rudimentary form." In a nice piece of intellectual dishonesty, the author ignores the fact the Court that the 2d Amendment permitted a law banning a sawed-off shotgun. In other words there was no personal right to bear a sawed-off shotgun -- clearly a firearm -- under the 2d Amendment. The decision may have been "rudimentary" in the author's view, but the Court acted anyway.

The author can NOT find a single case where the Supreme Court, or any federal court, struck down a gun-control restriction because of the 2d Amendment. Absent such a piece of law, the Author's opinion is just a clever and false argument much like the argument that the earth is flat.