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

To: combjelly who wrote (706327)	3/28/2013 4:47:06 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578128

it was about shooting tyrants who might try to control this country and trample the Constitution.

To: combjelly who wrote (706327)	3/28/2013 6:17:09 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578128

>> The Second Amendment was about supporting militias for the defense of the country. I think you misinterpret, at least to some extent, the phrase "defense of the country". While it was viewed as a defense against foreign invaders it was at least as much about defense against tyranny. The sheer context of the Second Amendment makes it abundantly clear: The Second Amendment would be ineffectual as against foreign invaders anyway; it has meaning only with respect to localized tyranny and oppression. Importantly, the Second Amendment is worded in a totally unconditional and unambiguous manner. It flatly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say, "If and only if there is no standing army" or "provided the Congress and President agree." There is, actually, very little left to interpretation. The chronic slippage in the authority of basic rights has to stop at some point. We've already given up a lot of ground from the intent of the Bill of Rights; at some point, someone has to stand up and defend these rights as absolute and immutable. If the Second Amendment can't be defended against liberal aggression, I'm not sure how you think other fundamental rights will be defended against much smaller interested constituencies. They're YOUR rights, too, even though you may not have much appreciation for them.