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: American Spirit who wrote (69578)	6/18/2006 12:58:07 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Yes - it does, it says for defense of the nation, which would require a military style defensive weapon of the type used during your time. At that time the flintlock was the pinnacle of technology, the AK-47 is rather an old design and will soon qualify as a collectors item under the Curios and Relics rules of the BATF. re:and no one in the US needs machine-guns, banana clips, cop-killer bullets There is no needs test for rights, they are to be exercised - any bullet can kill, there is no such things as cop killer bullets that's a media word to draw readers to their stories.

To: American Spirit who wrote (69578)	6/18/2006 2:06:07 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Totally wrong. The Constitution doesn't say anything about citizens being able to have military weapons, just to "bear arms" which meant at the time a flintlock rifle or two for hunting and/or self defense. AS you are interpreting the Constitution. It's says nothing about hunting. It says, "being necessary to the security of a free State". "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It does not specify, type or caliber. Flintlock or cannon. It's the ultimate check and balance to tyranny, whether from without or within. It says "being necessary to the security of a free state". To me this means that these arms may be kept and can be used when the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are being infringed upon. Any other use of them is not guaranteed or authorized by the Constitution. Not even for hunting.