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: TimF who wrote (1980)	10/10/2000 12:30:27 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

You need to to read the Constitution and quit making this up. I'm not ignoring the words, like "well-regulated militia", you are. It is still poorly written, if that is what you are saying. You said: However the 2nd amendment doesn't give any rights to the militia, it gives the rights to the people. It says: 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. Then why does the darn thing start talking about the well-regulated militia to put it in context? Good grief. The right of the people (in the abstract, as a collective) shall not be infringed. It's not like we don't have 50 Commanders in Chief of the National Guards elected by the people. If we only had a centralized government, then maybe. I agree, there is a tradition of gun ownership and regulation of that ownership in the hands of private citizens and a reasonable expectation that that will continue. That claim is tenuous based upon ONLY the 2nd amendment. Much like the constitutional claims for slavery. The impersonal language here in the 2nd amendment is very different than that elsewhere. Not "in their persons" like the language of the 4th, or "person" in the 5th Amendment or or "owner" like in the 3rd, or "the accused" like in the 6th, all singular specific. It is impersonal and abstract. If you are asserting that you are part of a well-regulated militia, go for it.

To: TimF who wrote (1980)	10/10/2000 10:14:38 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 10042

As for the reserves - Actually, many people get confused on this... The Army/Air Force/Marine/Navy Reserves are Federal entities under SOLE control of the President of the United States. The Army and Air National Guard ARE NOT under the command of the President WITHOUT their being Federalized under Title 10 (which accesses them into the active duty military structure and budgetary pool). They are under the control of their respective governors, who appoint Adjutant Generals as the military head of the forces and are technically considered the "official" state militia. However, that does not exclude the creation or other militias, which is the "loop hole" that we see the current wave of militia movements acting under. They can legally exist although state governments are utterly unwilling to support their activities. The point of the militia is that it exist in order to counteract any possible attempt by the newly established Federal Government to seize total control over the individual states. Personally, I believe every able-bodied male should serve two years in the military as a conscript. There is no better way to create a body of trained reservists who can been called up in times of need (assuming our active forces are getting their butts kicked), as well as curtail the power of an ever encroaching central government. And btw, that rag-tag collection of untrained people kicked the hell out of the british army.... And it would do it again to any army foolish enough to actually invade us. That is, if the liberals don't wind up snatching everyone's weapons from them... (or registering every weapon so that they can readily be collected by a hostile invader with access to the records) Regards, Ron