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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (5616)	8/19/2001 7:00:57 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

From my earlier post.. But given that decision on it's face, I think you come to a reasonable conclusion that the Court in 1939 would have called the 2nd a collection right vs. an individual right. I come to that conclusion based on the Court indicating that protected weapons were defined as having a military use and the referenced intent that the militia was favored over a standing army. The decision also pointed to various laws that required an inspection of the members of the militia to ensure that they were properly prepared and appropriately equipped [with penalities if they were not]. I've seen two fundamentally different defintions as to what is or is not included in the term militia, one individual, one collective, i.e., the national guard. I do know that the national guard can be required to defend the country, but it is required that the "individual" to defend the country if called upon. IMO, if the answer is no, then they would not be part of the "militia". It would have been quite easy to insert "non-felon" in the second.....therefore, felons appear to have a right to bear arms. What Constitutionally<b/>, allows a convicted felon from not bearing arms? jttmab