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: TimF who wrote (142408)	2/5/2002 4:22:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578092

How many times have you heard an opponent of gun control cite the "right to keep and bear arms" without mentioning the introductory phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ..."? The amendment does not say "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" it says "the right of the people". In one of the Sup. Ct rulings I posted, the court ruled that they were linked. Do you feel the Ct's interpretation is incorrect? As a simple matter of English grammar he first phrase does not place any limits on the second phrase. But if you insist on a limitation to the militia then most adult men and some women have a right to keep and bear arms. You would exclude some women but I don't think that just keeping guns from women is what you are trying to do. What can I say.......the Sup.Ct disagrees. ted

To: TimF who wrote (142408)	2/5/2002 4:35:54 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578092

Tim, once again you have flooded your post with links and cases........I don't have time to review each one, sorry. I can say that most of the cases you cite are based on state law as they relate to the 2nd amendment. State courts have often interpreted the Constitution differently from the Sup. Ct. And that's not surprising since there are biases involved with the lower cts that are supposed to be beneath the Sup. Ct. I think there were two cases that were two Sup. Ct cases you cited.............one had to do with the rights of blacks in general and not an interpretation of the rights to bear arms clause.....same with the other case, the focus was not the right to bear arms. Anyone can interpret what the Sup. Ct. means but only when the Sup.Ct. clarifies its meaning in a ruling, does it carry any weight. As for the latest case that Eric posted, apparently a lower court has put out a ruling that diverges from the other 30 lower court rulings. But again, I would not take my cue from this latest ruling until the Sup. Ct. affirms that ruling. ted