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: William Marsh who wrote (4012)	8/13/2000 3:28:18 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

Again, "right to bear arms" means "right to serve in the military", thereby ensuring a citizen army. What's your basis for saying this? Can you cite a legal case or a statement from a supporting contemporaneous document like the Constitutional Convention proceedings or the Federalist papers?

To: William Marsh who wrote (4012)	8/13/2000 3:30:51 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13060

William, the writings of the FF's disagree with this statement: "right to bear arms" means "right to serve in the military", thereby ensuring a citizen army. It does not mean right to own weapons." Your statement is a popular contemporary spin doctoring of the FF's intent. 2ndlawlib.org If I could snap my fingers and make all firearms disappear I would. But that is a pipe dream. I have a hard time believing that gun ownership was less then. First of all, how would they be able to know? Guns were manufactured by private concerns, there was no gun owner registration. Regards, Barb

To: William Marsh who wrote (4012)	8/25/2000 10:58:30 AM
From: theturboe	Respond to of 13060

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 : nraila.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. From Florida: "(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph. (c) [A]nyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony. (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun." Article 1, Section 8. The legislature of the State of Florida, in a declaration of policy incorporated in its "Weapons and Firearms" statute, recognizes the lawful ownership, possession and use of firearms for the defense of "life, home and property" and for use in target practice, hunting and "other lawful purposes." Notice how the vast majority of State Constitutions make the Right a little clearer?

To: William Marsh who wrote (4012)	12/2/2000 9:49:49 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

On gun ownership in colonial times, I have read reviews of history books in the last year which examine gun ownership. The conclusion was that it was much less prevalent then today. No you know what I know. The number of guns was certainly less then today but there were also less people. The number of guns per person may have been less but probably not the percentage of people who owned guns. I think that fewer people had large private collections. People had less money back then and guns were not mass produced the way they are now. All of this is not including police or military owned guns in the equation. The standing military is much bigger now and so are police forces. Again, "right to bear arms" means "right to serve in the military", thereby ensuring a citizen army. It does not mean right to own weapons. So "the right to keep and bear arms", does not mean "the right to own weapons"? A rather twisted interpretation. I suppose you could keep and bear arms owned by someone else but that its a stretch to see that as the meaning of the amendment. Even if the amendment was put in place for the specific reasons of making sure that the militia would have guns available that does not mean that it is limited to people in the militia. Nothing in the amendment says anything like "the right of militia members shall not be infringed", or "this amendment only protects the rights of people who are in the militia or the army". Tim