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 (1992)	10/10/2000 1:08:14 PM
From: GHowe	Respond to of 10042

Not to get off the topic, but has anyone noticed that GWB has pulled ahead in the latest polls? Agreed, polls can be flawed and somewhat spurious, but given that the mainstream media had all but declared GWB dead after the Democratic convention I believe that this is an interesting turn of events. In my opinion, AG's losing the battle of trust. His recent gaffes in the debate highlight was has been a history of half-truths. GWB came across much more sincere and honest, and did not speak condescendingly to the American people. Perhaps the pundits were right after all, that the last debate would decide the election. I suspect that GWB has hit on a theme that could resonate well through the election: character really does matter. G Howe

To: TimF who wrote (1992)	10/10/2000 4:12:32 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

The very reason there is a Bill of Rights is that many considered the personal protections of the Constitution weak. IT is ambiguous and while the Constitution says a lot about the mechanics of government, it says precious little about the individuals within that government. Therefore, even as the ink was drying, the first 10 Amendments were added. The framers did not envision cruise missiles which effectively give the range of the Naval Fleet that of on shore artillery or even nuclear delivery. Their use of arms was limited by their 19th century understanding of war. Many argue that the first "modern" war was WWII. Up till then people lined up and shot at each other. Americans learned from the Indians the tactics of guerrilla warfare, but it wasn't called that then. If you take the Amendment to mean what you claim, that the people should be able to possess the arms of the day so as to repel an army, then it simply doesn't mean that now if you limit it to rifles and pistols. There is no way a bunch of armed freedom fighters could regain control of an evil government. In a no holds barred conflict, the citizenry will lose massively if only armed with pistols and rifles. So trying to put this into that context is not proper. Nor, is it, IMO, advisable. Very few countries have the weaponry we do in the hands of citizens. Are you suggesting that that is the reason for our freedom? I don't think so. The lesson of revolutionary government is that more often than not, when the revolution is over, the gun owners persist in hunting down people who fought against the revolution and that a select few stay in power. This didn't happen here, not because of the guns, but because the EDUCATED elite that comprised the "Founding Fathers" had the sense not to go after people who had defended the Crown. There were those that did. THAT is the main difference between us and other governments that arose through revolution. If you don't look at the 2nd Amendment through this lens, you will see a very distorted picture of what your rights were in their mind. Now time has changed people's expectations. That's okay.

To: TimF who wrote (1992)	10/10/2000 8:18:27 PM
From: LRNLATN	Respond to of 10042

<<I'm not ignoring the word well regulated militia. I am looking at the direct meanings of the words. The right is not granted to the militia. Why does it mention the militia? Apparently for rhetorical support of the active clause of the amendment. The first phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", makes no statement that allows or forbids government or individuals to do anything. The only active clause is the 2nd clause.>> Tim, I'm really happy you posted this so clearly. My great great grandfather and his father both served as lifelong officers in their local militia. They were expected to supply their own guns. The militia was "regulated", but the guns were not. The men had to show up for "muster", for training, and to prove that their weapons were kept in good condition so they were ready to protect their homes and those of their neighbors when the need arose. Without that well regulated militia that showed up on Lexington Green, we wouldn't even have a country today. And if we let our rights be eroded bit by bit, the country won't be ours much longer. It will belong to some group who won't have to ask our opinion about anything and won't ask who we want to vote for either. That gun control group who will be doing it for our own good, will be calling all the shots, because they will have all the guns. LIVNLRN