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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (3627)	5/13/2000 10:40:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

The second amendment says "the right of the people", not the right of the milita. The phrase about the well regulated gives support to the idea that the peoples right shall not be infringed but it does state any limitation of this right. The amendment does not say "the right of the milita", or the rights of milita members". Furthermore by law (and by the law and customs at the time of the writing of the constitution as well) every able bodied male citizen is a member of the milita. Tim

To: chalu2 who wrote (3627)	5/13/2000 10:55:00 PM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

Ambiguities indeed. Sheer legal sophistry almost as herniated as your other deconstructionist arguments! I think it's clear that "the people" is not intended by the Founders to be restricted to the context of well-regulated state militias. We did not have a standing national military in 1789 and a militia is a VOLUNTARY organization; precatory rather than mandatory. Having the several states regulate militias meant that they would help mobilize them again a common foreign enemy, which was a real threat to the fledgling Union. So, if the 2nd meant that citizen would be restricted to bearing arms only in the context of being in a militia, then it would be stated that the states COULD infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. Because then "people" would mean only those belonging to a militia. This is clearly nonsensical to use "people" to mean only those in a militia. "Keep" means "own", being a common 18th century usage. It is the fallacy of composition to say that only "the people" collectively can keep and bear arms but individuals alone cannot. AMENDMENT II A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

To: chalu2 who wrote (3627)	5/14/2000 10:44:00 AM
From: The Street	Respond to of 13062

<<The Second Amendment does not, at least in the view of our federal courts, provide a general right to individuals to own arms. It is poorly drafted, but could have said: "The right of individual citizens to bear arms shall not be abridged." It doesn't, but contains language about "the right of the people", and a "well-regulated militia."<< YOU are TOTALLY WRONG! Get a CLUE... Subject 21779 Started By: Turboe Date: Jun 28, 1998 12:30 PM "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " ...2nd Amendment To the United States Constitution Hmm. What does that mean in English? Go to: The Unabridged Second Amendment shadeslanding.com. Personally, I think you can go to State firearm laws and get the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. All the states are listed at: State-by-State Firearm Laws nra.org. For example: From Indiana: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State." Article 1 Section 32. Notice how the vast majority of State Constitutions make the Right a little clearer? Now, for a good, if not long, treatise on the 2nd Amendment: The Embarrassing Second Amendment shadeslanding.com. Now, for the legal definition of militia, from the Federal Code: 10 USC Sec. 311 (01-16-96)http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.shtml . Interesting! Now, what some people in Congress have to say: REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION nidlink.com. Now, what some Doctors have to say: violence.txt at ca-rkba.org. What do academics have to say? A great source for scholarship on the 2nd Amendment can be found at Second Amendment Law Library 2ndlawlib.org. What about all the handgun deaths! Outlaw them! Well, let's have a look at some muses on this point: Heartland Policy Study Taking Aim at Gun Control heartland.org Funk N.W. U. Journal of Law and Criminology users.ox.ac.uk Finally, the latest from the Supreme Court on it's ruling of the "Brady Bill". It was not argued as a 2nd Amendment issue, but as a 10th Amendment issue. Check it out: JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503 supct.law.cornell.edu. Notice what Judge Thomas says at the end? Someday... Now, for the organizations: NRA.org (National Rifle Association) Home Page nra.org Gun Owners of America gunowners.org For a Pro/Con debate, visit PBS's FRONTLINE Guns Pro and Con pbs.org. Finally, keep in mind that the U.N., yes the U.N., wants our guns. They actually have TOO many resolutions to list here. Just go to United Nations Home Page and do a search on "guns", "firearms", etc. A real "eye opener"... un.org

To: chalu2 who wrote (3627)	5/14/2000 7:23:00 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13062

You need to check out Amendment 9. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And Amendment 10 clinches it: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And if that isn't enough for you, read the fourth amendment and the rest of the constitution. Nowhere does it say "the right of the people" means just those organized for a particular purpose.