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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fresc who wrote (39242)	3/15/2005 5:35:24 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I've noticed something about the conservatives around these parts...by and large, they really don't like to read. Give them a slogan they can grab onto..."Right to bear arms" and they'll repeat it over and over. Ask them to read US v. Miller? LOL. What's even more remarkable is that he asked for examples of what cases the NRA could bring to the USSC. I tell him and he doesn't want to hear it. Then there's the assualt weapons ban in California; and out and out ban with a decision from the Court that there is no individual right to bear arms. ... what does he reply with..."I'm not positive, but I think that putting restrictions on gun ownership has been deemed constitutional." Right, putting restrictions...you can't have one. Even if you ignore the collective right issue of US v. Miller and assume that there is an invidual right, there's one thing that should be perfectly clear....An assault weapon is a protected weapon under the 2nd amendment. A conservative with half of a brain would have at least pointed to the Texas case where the Court ruled that the 2nd was an individual right. Since he hasn't the wit to bring it up, I will. The problem with the Texas case is that the ruling misread US v. Miller. The Court claimed that US v. Miller was narrow and only applied to guns that would only be used in the commission of a crime. [Whatever that is.] That would have been fine had the Court in US v. Miller said that, or said nothing at all. But the Court was quite clear. A sawed off shotgun is not protected under the 2nd because it has no use in a modern Army. sic, they don't issue sawed off shotguns in the Army. A rather unusual follow on to the Texas decision was the action taken by the Administration immediately following that decision. They sent a brief to the USSC asking them not to even hear any challenges to that decision. Neither the NRA or the current Administration want the USSC to rule on the 2nd amendment. No other reason for that other than they expect to lose. jttmab