SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: one_less who wrote (696600)2/1/2013 6:18:33 PM
From: Alighieri  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1575010
 
That single notion is exactly what the Bill of Rights was founded on (fear of government encroachment on human rights). I would love to see any argument to that point if you have one.


Written in another era, of another time...we now live in a representative republic...in any case I see no evidence of a government today that wants to encroach on people's rights as outlined in the constitution. You can have your guns...we simply ask you to be responsible to the very same republic you seem to fear, since at some point your unchecked freedom begins to impinge on the safety of others.

I think I have already addressed that. Simply stated in one word, “infringement,” specifically with regard to the 2nd amendment.

You've said it, but have failed to prove it with examples...the last and most cited SCOTUS case is the DC v Heller, in 2008. It stated that....

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Al



To: one_less who wrote (696600)2/2/2013 12:51:12 PM
From: i-node1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1575010
 
>> It is clear that the founders saw an armed population essential to the protection of liberty and an unarmed population as threatened. Not just armed but as well or better armed than government forces. That is not the case today and the government has taken the reigns from American citizens in this regard. The 2nd amendment was designed to keep that from happening, but it has.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of this concept on the part of those on the left. Many seem to think the 2nd Amendment was solely to serve as a "replacement" for an army; of course, those great people of the time recognized it as as important, if not more so, to protect the citizenry against leaders with bad intentions.