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: tejek who wrote (142304)	2/4/2002 11:39:09 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578900

So there can never be peace nor a cure for cancer? As long as human nature remains the way it is then we will probably never have total peace. A cure for cancer is possible because there is no inteligent scheming against the goal, and no concern that treatment of cancer would infringe against our liberty and constitutional rights. The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Ct's interpretation...that the authors of the Constitution meant "the right to bear arms" to mean a militia which was the US's standing army for a while. That is not the supreme courts interpretation. They have never ruled definitively on this matter. The most resent federal appeals court case on this issue did explicitly say that the right is an individual right, as is every other right mentioned in the constitution. The states have powers not rights. "The people" are not the government either in common useage or in any other aspect of constituional law. Even if it was the supreme courts interpretation it would be an incorrect one because it violates the clear meaning of the words. Also even if the right was somehow limited to the milita every able bodied male non-felon adult citizen is a member of the milita according to federal law. The milita was never the US's standing army. The states controled the milita, they where not a full time standing army, and they used their own weapons not weapons kept in federal or state armories. Then you missed the one where the NRA was opposed to safeties on guns since they feel that is "another attack on gunowners". Perhaps because the NRA does not oppose safties, which are a fairly standard item on semi-auto weapons, but rather a legal requirement for built in locks to prevent the gun from fireing without a key, or combination, or some way to identify the user through biometrics or a ring with a magnetic symbol that the owner would wear. These would add to the cost of the gun, and increase the chance that it was unavailable for self defense use when it is needed. Tim