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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (1861)	10/9/2000 7:18:29 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

Uh, well-regulated militia. Comments on that part? I think dissecting this 18th century document in a 21st century context is absurd. You have to look at what the framers intended, but then you have to advance it to current state of affairs. After you do that, you have to look at the principles as have been historically applied. When my dad was in college, you could order a Belgian 20 mm cannon by mail order. Now I think it would be fun to shoot one (these were single round bolt actions), but I don't think it is what we want people mounting in their cars to handle road rage. So, with that said, what were the framers afraid of? Well, armies of a centralized authoritarian government. Since the structure of the Reserves has each State Governor (a freely elected independent executive) as Commander in Chief of his/her forces, then we seem to have addressed the general concern. If the unthinkable ever happens and the Christian Right starts forcing my kids to prayer groups and classes on Creationism, I'm sure that even if my guns are regulated, that I could create a respectable propane cannon from parts readily available from Orchard Supply if I need to. But that isn't the problem that is facing us right now, is it?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (1861)	10/9/2000 7:18:30 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Hey, Lather, I've known you long enough to know not to argue this issue with YOU- or I should know! You are very knowledgeable about it and I place a lot of credibility in your opinion. The problem is never with the responsible person, but with the abusers of the rights. Who determines when the exercising of individual rights endangers others? We can't just ignore the problem. OR can we? That's interesting about the definition- I was just writing to twf that the definition of militia seemed greatly changed, but I didn't know that about the 18-50 age thing. You have a ways to go, but I have to turn in my uzi, it seems- both on account of sex and age. Hey- for you on this issue- that wasn't at ALL ranty.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (1861)	10/9/2000 7:29:06 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

from dictionary.com. It would seem that well-regulated AND militia being put in the same clause, makes it clear which of the following meanings ( 1 or 2, IMO) to which they were referring. But then there is that troublesome, well regulated language... mi·li·tia (m-lsh) n. Abbr. mil. 1.An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2.A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3.The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.