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: Bill who wrote (1060016)	3/12/2018 5:12:29 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573924

You seem to have a problem interpreting the 2nd amendment. The USSC laid it out clearly for you in Heller: Of course if you think it needs interpretation, it took about 200 years and many court cases to get it like you like it but that took a conservative court. So this is not an interpretation this is fiat.... "1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The second does not say that...... If the second meant that it could have been simply accomplished by removing the first clause from the sentence, ie A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, And just keep it "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " Remember at the time of formation, the country consisted of 13 free nation states....each with their own militia's or the means to form a militia to protect themselves from neighboring states, they had no fear from the government cause the government didn't exist yet..for the most part,when they went to war against England they did so under their own state flag ...So, in effect, New York was protecting itself from Massachusetts...they weren't afraid of a central government, they were trying to form one...