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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (15785)	10/21/2002 5:24:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

You keep omitting the first clause Because the first clause as a matter of simple English grammar does not specify any legal requirement or limitation or otherwise modify the point made by the 2nd clause. The amendment does not say "the rights of the militia' shall not be infringed", or "the rights of the state shall not be infringed". Also because at least for many men its almost a unimportant point if the rights are really those of the militia because by law able-bodied males between seventeen and forty-five are members of the militia. But of course I wouldn't want to deprive older men or women of their second amendment rights. As for the Miller decision. "Although it appears as if interpretation of the Second Amendment was simple and obvious to the Court, the Court considered only the government's representations and arguments because the defendants did not appear and were not represented. Nonetheless, the Court did not find that the right to arms was a collective right, or that it belonged only to the militia or the National Guard. Furthermore, in remanding the case, the Supreme Court did not suggest that the district court inquire as to the defendants' membership in the militia or the National Guard." familyguardian.tzo.com Tim

To: jttmab who wrote (15785)	10/21/2002 9:23:44 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

You're just like the rest of the gun control crowd. You don't have a reason, yet you persist. I don't leave out the first clause, I just believe that it does nothing to modify the second clause, Miller notwithstanding. That's an ancient case preceded by the Dredd Scott decision which held that negroes couldn't be persons because they didn't have the right (among other things) to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court makes mistakes when it tries to satisfy political pressures, as both of these cases demonstrate.