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: jttmab who wrote (6039)	8/19/2001 1:20:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

The National Guard is not a militia in the way the founders new the term militia. It is not people joining in to protect the country or state with their own weapons and totally under local or state jurisdiction. The militia was often organized when the country needed to be defended. Most people who fought in militia units didn't sign up and then get called when there country needed them nor were they subject to be drafted. They where people with their own weapons that joined when they thought they could help out. I disagree with Miller in that I don't believe that the 2nd amendment is limited to weapons of military usefulness and I also disagree with the contention that a shotgun has no military usefulness. But even if you accept that decision as correct it doesn't specifically say that only militia members have a right to keep and bear arms nor does it say that only members the national guard or organized state militias are members of the militia. In fact if it did say so it would be a decision that directly contradicts federal law on this issue. 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, allows a convicted felon from not bearing arms? I have three arguments about this. Pick the one(s) you like. 1 - It was simply assumed that felons should not be able to be armed so much so that they did not even think to mention it. It was not assumed that regular honest citizens would not be allowed to be armed, many of them where. 2 - All constitutional rights have some limitations in practice. For the first you can't legally defraud someone or perjure yourself and get away with it by claiming you where just using your free speech. You can't "yell fire in a crowded theater" either. A restriction on felons owning guns and a restriction on using guns in an unsafe manner could fit in well with this idea and probably would not go against the original intent of the framers of the constitution. 3 - Fine, maybe felons do have a right to keep and bear arms. Whether they do or not I do. If you want to fight to enforce their right, go for it. Tim