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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (94376)	1/9/2005 1:45:29 PM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793770

kholt, There was no flip-flop. You said the second amendment did not give me the right to own a gun, so I mentioned the element of the word "militia" to prove that I could own a gun. If I am allowed to own a gun, and keep it in my possession, I have the right to use it in any lawful manner. Defending ones family, home, and possessions, is legal under the auspices of the second amendment, and in the eyes of the law enforcement entities. Just ask a cop. That may not be OK wherever you live, but if so, I wouldn't want to live in such a place that restricts my rights. When the second amendment was written, I believe that the authors of it, knew damned good and well that the weapons would serve other purposes, and didn't expect the citizens to save the use of them for militia duty only. I have no problem, but think that you are doing a bit of nit picking on the subject. A gun is a gun, and defense is defense, no matter from where the threat comes. Without the second amendment, citizens would not have the right to own a gun for any purpose. It is the basis for the right to own a gun, regardless of the wordage. Nuff said.