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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (43094)	12/13/2005 7:09:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

The commonly accepted definition of arms in the context of the Second Amendment means hand held firearms that fire once each time the trigger is pulled. That is one interpretation. One that I have very little problem with. Although you would think "arms" would include things like swords and knives as well. I was just pointing out that it is interpretation. I believe in taking the constitution pretty literally but sometimes someone has to make a judgment about what the words mean. IMO the interpretation you mention is a reasonable one. The more time we spend defending the illogical position that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own nuclear weapons and machine guns the weaker our case and the more chance there is for the whole thing to go down the tubes. Yes it would be a poor political tactic. But I wasn't talking in terms of political tactics. I was interpreting the words of the constitution. Its possible to reasonable interpret the words in ways that produce politically unpopular results, or even results that the vast majority of people would find unacceptable. I don't support the government acting unconstitutionally, but I don't believe it is necessary to amend the constitution either. Once a constitutional convention is convened, the whole ball of wax is up for grabs and we don't want that. If you believed that the constitution really did give an individual right to own and keep nuclear weapons would you oppose any attempt to amend the constitution? If not would you oppose unconstitutional action to prevent private ownership of nuclear weapons until the constitution is amended? I don't support the interpretation that nuclear weapons ownership is constitutionally protected so I also see no need to amend the constitution or for the government to act outside its constitutional limits. My remarks were made in the context of the Laz's "A nuke isn't an arm? Tell that to Missile Command." If you accept the interpretation implied by Laz's post, then nuclear weapons are constitutionally protected. If that was the case I would support acting outside the constitution to prevent such ownership. Tim

To: ManyMoose who wrote (43094)	12/13/2005 8:14:25 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

When the amendment was written, the framers did not mean artillery and bigger weapons that had not been invented yet are irrelevant. You know that how? I find it rather amazing that you can read minds- -particularly those of dead men. Once a constitutional convention is convened, the whole ball of wax is up for grabs and we don't want that. That statement has been made many times. On what basis do you justify it? Could not a convention be authorized whose only allowed function is to change the 2nd amendment? Why not? Additionally, anything they come out with has to go through a ratification process like the Constitution did and like any amendment does. If you don't like their work. don't ratify it.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (43094)	12/14/2005 10:03:20 AM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Many, Seems to me, that we should consider what the weapons were at the time the Constitution was written. They had flint lock rifles, that had to be loaded with a powder pack, ball, and wad, jammed into the barrel with a ram rod, and then needed powder poured into the tray, cock the hammer back, and then aim and fire. The pistols were also muzzle loaded. But it is reasonable that the definition of fire arms, should be updated to consider the newer technology that has modernized them. Then we have to consider what can be called a fire arm. I think it is a weapon that can be fired by a single human being in the defense of his life, family, property, and/or community, which would exclude things like artillery, bombs, etc. Things like that, need to be under the control of the military of the nation.