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 (4522)	12/5/2000 3:54:48 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 13062

William, it depends on the definitions of arms. In this context it has historically meant hand carried small fire arms firing regular bullets not explosive devices. Would simple registration of firearms be unconstitutional? Thats a borderline case. It would depend on if you consider that an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. I would tend to say that it probably is unconstitutional. But my interpretations of the bill or rights might go a bit further then many other people's view. If a registration requirement is unconstitutional that would not cause me to want to repeal the 2nd amendment. I am not for a legal requirement to register guns. The one benefit of an argument for repealing the 2nd amendment is at least it does not ignore our legal protections. I have no problem with the 2nd amendment but those who do not like it should seek to have it repealed rather then ignored. If it can just be ignored then why not ignore any other constitutional protection that becomes annoying to some? Tim

To: William Marsh who wrote (4522)	12/6/2000 10:45:03 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

Repeal the 2nd? Some people believe the right to keep (own) and bear (actually use) arms is linked inexorably with the right of self-defense and defense of your family. If you repeal the 2nd, the right would still remain. How would you then proceed to "infringe" a "right" and still claim it is a "right". It would then be the "privilege" of keeping and bearing arms by that definition and after that anything goes. Private militias are prohibited, so your surface to air, flame thrower argument is more hyperbole than fact. Have any of the items you mention been used in a crime lately, ....ever? What exactly will be accomplished by registration? Will you be calling them occasionally to see if their weapons are secure. Is hunting with an unregisted shotgun or rifle a problem? Is defending your life or your family with an unregistered weapon a problem. Is target shooting with an unregistered weapon a problem. None of these things were problems in the past. What has made the citizen so untrustworthy that he must register all weapons? Who will call the criminal to see if he is in compliance? If you cannot make the criminal comply, how can you in good faith require it of the average citizen? Before you answer the last question read Haynes vs. U.S. shadeslanding.com