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: longnshort who wrote (39640)	3/23/2005 9:40:23 PM
From: fresc	Respond to of 173976

This one is for RED and LONGSNOT! Tough question for gun nuts We've seen that court rulings support gun laws and the framers had little or nothing to say about them. No one except a few loonies support an absolute right to bear arms. But let's give them a shot at defending their made-up interpretation. Consider the words gun nuts love to quote out of context: "...the right keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Is this right unlimited? That is, does the right to bear arms extend to bearing nuclear bombs, poisonous gas, anthrax, and similar weapons? If you don't believe someone has the right to build a nuke next door to you, you're admitting there's a limit to the Second Amendment. Then the only question is where the limit is, not whether the limit exists. I've never heard a gun lover address this point—at least, not successfully. If someone has a valid answer, he or she can be the first. Good luck. Here's one poor soul's attempt: >> Weapons of mass destruction DO NOT fall under the second Amendment. << Says who? Do you expect us to take your word for it? Take my word for it instead: They do fall under the Second Amendment. Better yet, check the dictionary definition of "arms," then tell us how it doesn't apply to nuclear arms. My dictionary says an "arm" is a "weapon of offense or defense." That clearly does include nukes. If you can interpret the meaning of "arms," so can anyone. Likewise, anyone can interpret the meaning of "militia," regardless of the definitions passed decades or centuries ago. Either all interpretations are valid or none are. No one gets to choose which words get read literally and which get interpreted