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: TimF who wrote (894886)	10/21/2015 11:26:10 PM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572942

I don't think it IS a non-sequitur. When the 2nd amendment was written an "arm" was a gun that could only fire 1 bullet at a time and it took a while to re-load and fire another bullet. AND, it didn't disqualify cannons and they only fired 1 cannon ball at a time. A nuke would only fire once and it would probably take time to fire another one. WHY are you AFRAID to let people arm themselves????????????????? If the type of guns available THEN were like the guns available NOW I don't think there would have been a 2nd amendment. At least it it would have been a LOT longer with more stipulations. And as it is the 2nd amendment says something about a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA". Shouldn't you HAVE to be part of a "well regulated militia" to have a gun???