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 (142462)	2/6/2002 1:20:18 AM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576166

<font color=red>#reply-17019419

To: tejek who wrote (142462)	2/6/2002 11:37:18 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1576166

I don't know if you read my post to Tim. The reason that the Sup. Ct. ruled as it did and the reason that Brady, the ACLU, and others agree that the second amendment did not intend to arm individuals but rather state militias, is because they understand the politics behind the creation of the second amendment. The militias where and are individuals both by common practice and as a matter of law. I disagree with Miller because based on English grammar the 2nd amendment doesn't even require any connection to a militia, but if you accept Miller then the right, instead of being an unqualified individual right, becomes a qualified or limited right, limiting the individual right to include only arms that are useful for militia purposes. Tim