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: TimF who wrote (85298)	9/18/2008 2:17:43 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541120

I did not mean to say that The Second Amendment applies only to hand held firearms. If I said that, I later said: "It's the line in the sand" [that we are defending]. I don't see the point in defending the line that the Second Amendment applies to nukes, tanks, machine guns and so forth. Those issues have been settled, and have nothing to do with individual freedom as hand held arms do.

To: TimF who wrote (85298)	9/18/2008 9:50:03 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541120

>>"ManyMoose asserted that the Second Amendment applies only to hand-held firearms." in a post that was a reply to "Since we exclude super lethal modern weapons from the second amendment, perhaps only personal weapons as lethal as those available when the constitution was written should be allowed. Such as single shot flintlock pistols and rifles, swords, etc. " Message 24956411 Its only one post back (in threaded reply terms, not consecutive post terms) from ManyMoose's post and only two back from yours, not some distant history of the conversation, let alone an non sequitur. It was what the conversation was about.<< Tim - Ah. I see why you said what you did. I just don't see why you chose to say it to me, since I didn't write the post to which ManyMoose responded. - Allen