SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (36748)5/3/1999 2:20:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
I was talking about the 2nd Amendment, not defining laws. And I did say my knowledge of the law was limited <G>.

The point I was trying to make is that only a lunatic would argue that ordinary citizens should have to unlimited access and to bear any arms they choose. That is, even the most ardent NRA member would agree that limitations ought to exist on ownership of arms.

I have been attempting to approach the issue from a policy point of view, because I believe that is the most fruitful approach.

TTFN,
CTC



To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (36748)5/3/1999 6:25:00 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
US law defines the arms in question as devices firing inert
projectiles ("bullets"). Thus artillery or cannon throwing pointy little bombs are not
covered by the Amendment.

Huh? That's not in MY copy of the constitution.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News