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: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (262150)	6/8/2002 3:43:32 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Respond to of 769667

OK, I get your point, but don't agree. A very interesting link. Most of the content dealt with the 2nd amendment as a useful tool for teaching law. I think we'll have to stand apart on the following, taken from that link: "With this new scholarly consensus has also come a renewed recognition, at times reluctant, that the Second Amendment must be taken into account in the gun control debate. It has not been uncommon in recent years for writers, even those who have supported far-reaching gun control measures, to reluctantly acknowledge the validity of the individual rights position. 66 Even an increasing number of federal jurists seem persuaded that the individual rights view of the Second Amendment cannot be easily dismissed. 67 While this view is probably still a minority view in the intellectual and judicial communities, the developments stand in marked contrast to the conventional wisdom less than a generation ago. Today, it might be fairly said that neither side of the Second Amendment debate could approach the Supreme Court with great confidence in the outcome." So, the author believes that neither side wants a Supreme Court confrontation, afraid that it would put an end to the debate. That is what is wrong with us today; we'd rather fight than resolve.

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (262150)	6/8/2002 3:58:32 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Gordon, even assuming that the Second Amendment establishes or recognizes the right of individuals to possess weapons, certainly it is not an absolute right. None of the fundamental rights in our bill of rights -- the exercise of religion, freedom of speech, right to be free from racial discrmination -- is absolute. Courts have consistently recognized that they must strike a balance between those rights and compelling government interests. If your religion includes human sacrafice, you're out of luck; the government can prohibit that practice without violating your constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Accordingly, assuming the Second Amendment means something more than federal courts have consistently held that it means, the question is how that balance is to be struck. There are easy cases on both sides -- the right to own a shotgun for hunting and self defense vs. the right to own an atomic weapon, or other weapons intended for warfare versus self-protection. It's the harder cases where the debate should be focused.