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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (36690)	3/3/1999 3:10:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

My grocery store argument was not in support of the original reasoning for the right to bear arms. It is in response to the NRAs claim that, essentially, the right to bear arms is written down, therefore, that means any citizen can carry any type of weapon anywhere at any time. No reevaluation, etc. How come this argument has been made time and time again in support of assault weapons etc. and when the definition of "high crime" comes up, oh wait - we need to determine what it meant to the framers? What did the right to bear arms mean to the framers? Not assault weapons! This is a very relevant argument, we have one group of people taking two opposing stances on how to interpret historical documents. Its one or the other. Either we take the right to bear arms literally with no contraints and Clinton walks (todays meaning to "the right to bear arms" and "high crimes") or, we reevaluate both - with the right to bear arms not including modern weaponry and a "high crime" definition that includes lying about sex (prior century interpretations)