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: RMF who wrote (895577)	10/22/2015 1:21:44 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572945

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 when the 1st amendment was written "the press" used something like this Time moves on. An AR-15 (or some other form of rifle, or pistol) is a modern version of those slow reloading weapons. A nuke isn't. 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. I doubt it. And as it is the 2nd amendment says something about a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA". Yes but 1 - It doesn't make any mandate prohibition or limitation based on that phrase. Its the "right of the people" (not the "right of the militia", just as in the first and 4th amendments 2 - The milita at the time was ordinary people having there are weapons. Also the militia in federal law that still holds today covers all adult men up to a certain age (and women and older people who are in the national guard or military reserves.