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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (32859)	7/1/2004 9:45:05 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

I agree that gun control comes in many flavors. Frankly, I'm not a gun person and don't have a lot of passion for the issue one way or another. My overall POV is that constitutional rights should not be lightly infringed upon. The reason I even responded to your initial post is that I find a disconnect between the liberal left's outcries over the Patriot Act and anything that is perceived to threaten civil liberties and its equally intense proclivity to want to control lives. The gun issue raised by the specter of RFID devices was an excellent illustration. How can the very same people who advocate radical forms of gun control be upset about the notion of RFID devices affixed to guns? After all, they don't think the public should be entitled to have guns at all and they want the government to preclude access. I would think that those holding that POV would embrace the RFID idea. I don't know how I feel about it at the moment as I haven't studied the issue, and as indicated, I'm not a gun person anyway.

To: SiouxPal who wrote (32859)	7/1/2004 10:19:00 AM
From: Wayners	Respond to of 81568

The sporting purpose test is a copy of 1938 Nazi law and has no basis in U.S. law. Federal and State Constitutions are clear and most State Constitutions are even clearer when it comes to an individual right because most don't have a militia clause. But the militia clause IMO actually makes it clear that the amendment has noting to do with sporting weapons but is about militia weapons..those commonly used at that time. The common militia weapon used today in the west is the M-16. In U.S. vs. Miller, 1939 the Supreme Court gave standing to two individuals, so the Amendment as last intrepreted by the high court did not view it as a State's right in the middle of a long list of individual rights. Second, the Supreme Court provided a test for whether a weapon was covered by the amendment. The test is whether the weapon is a commonly used militia weapon. The court ruled a sawed off shot gun was not a commonly used militia weapon. I can somewhat agree there. M-16s are commonly used by police, SWAT and military in very large numbers. That is a true militia weapon and is covered by the amendment per the Supreme Court. The Miller case unfortunately has to be completely twisted to change its meaning.