SI
SI
discoversearch

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: TigerPaw who wrote (15921)10/22/2002 4:22:39 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 

I find it amazing that you could think the framers of the second amendment would start out with frivolous drivel and work their way into the issue nearest and dearest to your heart.


I suppose that would be rather amazing. And it would actually be relevant if I though any such thing but since I don't and did not state that I did, its just irrelevant.

What they did start out with was an argument for the necessity of the protection of an individual right and then they followed it up with a prohibition of infringing on that right. I find it amazing that you can ignore the active clause of the amendment, the only clause that makes any prohibition, mandate, or limitation, and try to claim that the amendment as a whole means exactly the opposite of its active clause.

Tim



To: TigerPaw who wrote (15921)10/23/2002 12:18:54 AM
From: ManyMoose  Respond to of 93284
 
They did think long and hard. As long as you guys don't try to impose unintended meaning on it (i.e. "The right of the national guard/militia to keep and bear arms.") the Second Amendment is just fine the way it is.