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 (142445)	2/6/2002 12:27:21 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577908

I was refering to the supreme court. Generally when someone in the US says "the court" and the context doesn't make it clear that it is some other court it is the supreme court. Just for the record, when someone says the court and they mean the Supreme Court, in my experience they usually cap "Court". So again I ask if the supreme court did rule against your position would you accept the ruling? Its not likely to happen but if they did, I would appeal it. I think that strict and well enforced gun control is so overdue in this country, its pitiful. from what I understand in reading the ruling, the Court states that "the right to bear arms" was referring to state militias, and was inserted to satisfy the anti-Federalists who wanted more power dispersed to the states. It was never intended for everyone to carry a a gun... The milita at the time was able bodied men with their own guns. They where sometime organizied by the states/colonies but they where not created by them. The right was the right of an individual to own arms, it may have been justified by the need of the states to call people up, but these people where not normally part of any orginization before they where called up. I know this will not make a difference to you but they talk about the militia as regulated by the states.....that was critical to satisfy the objections of the anti Federalists. The militia was a not a rag tag group, running around hither and yon without direction. It wasn't an army either but rather something in between. However, it definitely was not individuals independent of each other with no organization. The parts of my previous post that are directly relevant to Miller follow ______ In Miller v. Texas, the defendant challenged a Texas statute on the bearing of pistols as violative of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The problem for Miller was that he failed to timely raise these defenses in the state trial and appellate courts, raising these issues for the first time in the U.S. Supreme Court. While the court held that the Second and Fourth Amendment (prohibiting warrantless searches), of themselves, did not limit state action (as opposed to federal If the argument that Miller failed to raise in a timely fashion was so compelling, why has in not been brought to bear in other Supreme Ct. cases and ruled upon? ted