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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (84951)	9/16/2008 6:30:02 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541054

Why not allow machine guns, tanks, or even nukes? Does the second amendment specify what kind of "arms" are allowable and what kind are not?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (84951)	9/16/2008 7:30:25 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541054

>>Your premise is preposterous because: 1) Convicted felons may not possess firearms, which is a proper regulation of bad behavior not firearms, and 2) Machine guns are not legal for the average citizen to possess, and nobody is arguing that they should be.<< MM - OK, I'll buy your first point. But not the second. You're the one who said that there should be "no common sense regulation" of firearms. So how is it that you are OK with machine guns not being legal? Isn't that prohibition just an example of common sense regulation? - Allen