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: TimF who wrote (16106)	10/25/2002 1:00:49 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

I think they are intertwined as is...I realize you don't. "In order" establishes the intended purpose of the amendment. Consider an example out of the context of the 2nd. In order to reach the moon, we need to have a rocket. Is the point to have rockets or to reach the moon? Surely, they are not separate thoughts. If the NRA wanted the USSC to resolve this there is a straight forward case to do so. Regardless of how one interprets US v. Miller, I think both sides would agree that assault weapons would be protected arms under the 2nd amendment. Challenge the assault weapons ban on 2nd amendment grounds using a person who is militia as defined by the US Code. The USSC has been know to trick me, but I believe that such a case forces a decision on whether the 2nd is a collective or an individual right. Whether people accept the decision is another matter, but it forces the decision. If the 2nd amendment is an individual right, then, IMO, the assault weapon ban is blatantly unconstitutional. It's as much a no-brainer as the line item veto. jttmab