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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (134797)	4/3/2001 10:09:58 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The text of the constitution offers the need for a militia as a rationale, it does not qualify the right to keep and bear arms. You are correct, the NRA does not support training as a precondition of gun ownership, and I think it may be wrong about that. But I also think the matter might require a constitutional amendment. To me, the matter hinges on a principle that is deeper than the constitution, namely the right of self- defense, which is the closest thing to an absolute right we have. The right of self- defense also entails the right to determine, within a broad range, what one requires for ones own defense. Those things which have little personal use, like tanks, might be restricted. But most rifles and pistols would qualify as legitimate. Similarly, some conditions of purchase and use are legitimate, but they must impose a minimal burden on a law abiding adult. It is possible that requiring a course in firearms use as a condition of licensure is too restrictive, impeding, as it does, the timely acquisition of firearms, and therefore compromising security should there be an immediate need for protection. For example, if I am a Korean grocer in a riot situation, I want a shotgun as soon as possible, to protect my property and person. Thus, while not committed to the NRA side, I am also not committed to the control side.