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.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DMaA who wrote (94248)1/8/2005 9:40:59 AM
From: Mary Cluney  Read Replies (4) of 793757
 
That end of the firepower debate was settled early in the last century. It is usually brought up to distract attention from the battle at the other end of the spectrum which is still ongoing. Radical abolitionists, despite the clear English of the Constitution, the clear intent of the Framers, and the clear desire of a super majority of Americans, still argue it is acceptable under the Constitution for government to confiscate ALL firearms. That’s the fight we are fighting today.


I am not up to speed on this issue. I have no position on this as of this moment.

My initial thoughts are that the framers of the Constitution wanted the people to have the ability to overthrow the government if the government no longer served the people.

By that, I would think they would not bar citizens from having any restrictions as to what they are allowed to have in terms of weapons.

On this matter, however, there was just no way the framers of the Constitution could ever imagine that you could someday develop nuclear weapons that could be hand held.

Nevertheless, we would still have to guess as to what the framers of the Constitution would have wrote if they knew what the future held.

I am completely agnostic on this issue as of the moment.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext