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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (239273)	3/18/2002 12:19:55 AM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

No. And furthermore, bare arms aren't an issue, to date. Finally, you know as well as I that the Constitution pre-empts anything that is contrary. Bare facts.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (239273)	3/18/2002 12:23:43 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

This is silly. Felons yield their right to vote AND to bear arms. They still get to "bare arms." If the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of all citizens to bare arms, that would protect a felons right to own a gun,

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (239273)	3/18/2002 6:43:28 AM
From: joseph krinsky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

This is something I agree with you on. There's nothing in the bill of rights that disqualifies a felon from owning a gun. It doesn't say the right of the people except if your a felon, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This was something that came afterwards. I am not saying that felons should be allowed to own guns, but the facts are the facts. The right just says that people are allowed to keep and bear arms. And I think that a case can be made that the word infringed can be interpreted to mean that you really don't even need a permit to carry concealed. Requiring you to have a permit is an infringement.