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: DMaA who wrote (230318)	12/4/2007 2:22:12 PM
From: goldworldnet	Respond to of 793838

There's zero possibility individual gun ownership was being debated in Colonial America. Heck we fought the Indians for another hundred years. * * *

To: DMaA who wrote (230318)	12/4/2007 5:12:07 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

Even if the first part is now perfectly false, that does not negate the right referred to in the second part. Try this analogy. 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. Embryonic stem cells, being necessary to the future of medicine, the right to clone and experiment on them shall not be infringed. So what happens to that right if it's determined that other than embryonic stem cells work just as well? Does the right to fiddle with them still stand? I expect that you'd argue it doesn't. You'd argue that the right depends on the continued legitimacy of the leading clause.