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: LindyBill who wrote (255748)	6/26/2008 3:10:23 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793896

Contrast Scalia's statement with the inherent evil in this opinion by Stevens: the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

To: LindyBill who wrote (255748)	6/26/2008 3:41:47 PM
From: Hoa Hao	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

Stevens dissent described as "Grotesque", "not existing this side of the looking glass" & "bizarre" They took no prisoners with that clown "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.".