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: The Philosopher who wrote (4000)	8/12/2000 8:53:14 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

"But airports are mostly public property" If we strictly follow the Constitution, why would the gov't be in the airport business? Do you think that the mandate to maintain Post roads can be interpreted to include running airports? Regards, Barb

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4000)	8/13/2000 5:07:52 AM
From: William Marsh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13060

The right to bear arms in the constitution is there in the service of a well regulated militia. All citizens can serve in the militia, thereby limiting the need for and power of any professional military class which could be used as a tool to subvert the republic. Regulating the militia is a government function. The constitution does not establish a right of private ownership of arms, nor does it contemplate any sort of arms control. So few people had arms in those days, and there destructive power was so limited, that the issue didn't arise. Clearly, we have to limit the private ownership of arms. Do we want neighbors with anthrax bombs or tactical nuclear weapons? or even armoured assault vehicles? So what policies do we adopt? Why not take an empirical approach: Which democratic, free economy countries have the lowest levels of violence and death by violence and what policies do they enforce? Seems simple enough.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4000)	12/2/2000 9:27:27 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 13060

Ah, but now you're limiting the Constitutional right by defining terms in a limited way. Why aren't stinger missiles "arms"? They can be hand carried. The conventional meaning of the terms arms in this context would not include large or explosive projectiles. The founders where talking about the standard hand carried antipersonnel infantry weapons of their day. Now that would include things up to such weapons as an M-16 or AK-47 but would not include stingers or artillery. Some role might exist for the courts to determine precisely what "Arms" mean, but such interpretation should consist of looking at the definition of the words and the history of their usage rather then seeing how the word arms can be twisted to fit a definition the would support bans of almost any firearm. Airplanes, okay, since they are owned by the private airlines. But airports are mostly public property, and the 2nd amendment prohibits the government from infringing the right to bear arms. So why do you allow the government to infringe your right to bear arms on public property? After all, if you say they can prohibit your having arms in an airport, you are also admitting that they can prohibit your right to bear arms on any public street or road. Traditionally the law treats public roads differently then government facilities and installations. For example government might be very limited in how it can regulate protests in public areas but still be able to strictly regulate or forbid such protests on a military base or inside the white house or inside of a city hall or governor's residence or for that matter an airport. IMO, where we are is that the constitution HAS to be interpreted. It doesn't mean exactly what it says it means. A law consists of words. To know what is meant by the words you have to interpret them. However words have definitions both from dictionaries and historical context. The words should be interpreted in light of these things rather then to fit the ideology of the interpreter. Courts can and do go beyond interpreting the law to making up new law under the guise of interpreting the old. But there is no way to stop the supreme court from doing this this (or allowing lower courts get away with it), except perhaps impeaching judges who do this excessively. The phrase "Who watches the watchers?" seems appropriate here. It doesn't mean exactly what it says it means. Why not? Tim