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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (13529)	11/6/1997 6:31:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, why do you keep sidestepping the issue of repealing the 2nd Amendment? Let the voters decide, not the ACLU. It looks to me like you think your side would LOSE if it were voted on. Jim

To: Grainne who wrote (13529)	11/6/1997 9:42:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I am obviously arguing that simply because a law was written historically, it may not be valid forever I'm still waiting for you to explain how you know when a law's "time is up". What are you going to say when someone tells you "Oh, Free Speech is no longer in effect"? They would be using your reasoning, where laws that you don't want can be declared no longer in effect, apparently upon a whim. I am simply pointing out that other parts of the Bill of Rights are decidedly irrelevant today, and the Second Amendment may be, as well. Amazing. And people wonder how the rule of law disappears. The rest of us may not have your ability to see what parts of the Bill of Rights are irrelevant. How do we get this ability to know what parts of the constitution are still in effect, and which ones have passed into disuetude? I asked you if you could cite any Supreme Court decisions as concurring with the interpretation of the Second Amendment that individual citizens are given the right to bear arms for their own private use. I would suggest that a notable absence of court rulings interpreting the amendment this way might be significant. And you will concede defeat when I produce them? A friend of mine is an avid student of these decisions, so you best prepare your fallback position. The one that says "These decisions are no longer valid". What on earth does this have to do with Dred Scott? I guess I'll have to draw you a map. 1. You sought to cite a Supreme Court decision as being the final arbiter of a subject. 2. I cited a Supreme Court decision that I knew you wouldn't like. 3. I asked if you still want to argue that we must defer to Supreme Court decisions. It's not that hard to follow. Of course I know what I am talking about. Oh. I guess the problem is that you don't know how to convey it. The only anarchy I see is your argument that laws can be ignored whenever someone decides that they are obsolete. You feel laws don't need to be repealed, they can just be ignored. This is a good definition of anarchy. What does what happened in 1845 have to do with this? I think we can conclude that nothing from the past concerns you. We may as well make confetti out of the whole Constitution, since it dates back to 1789.