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 (6045)	8/21/2001 7:10:43 AM
From: jttmab	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. Not much of the militia or military is now as was the Framers understood it. They didn't much want a standing Army, we've abandoned that concept. We can rationalize it's existence in today's world, but it does depart from the intent they had. We accept that rationalization today, but I think without much serious consideration of it's validity. The militia was neither well-organized [as it is in terms of the National Guard] nor was it totally spontaneous as needed as you tend to suggest. The historical references in US. v. Miller indicate it was something in between. If you're using the argument that we are to adhere to something closer to what the Framers had during there time with respect to the militia. Then we should also be headed towards a balance of military and militia that the Framers had in their time, i.e., no standing Army. 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. If the hypothetical decision were to come to pass, I don't think it means they would contradict federal law; it would mean that individual gun ownership would be a privelege rather than a right. But you might have a specific law in mind that there would be a conflict. I'd have to know which law we were talking about. Re: the three choices: 1 - It was simply assumed that felons should not be able to be armed... I'm sure that a number of people would beat me up [figuratively] if I were to claim "assumed" on a Constitutional point without being able to back it up with historical references of intent. I get jumped on when I make a claim and it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution. 2 - All constitutional rights have some limitations in practice. That's tricky isn't it? Ok, how about limiting gun ownership to the National Reserve [which comprises the people]? 3 - Fine, maybe felons do have a right to keep and bear arms. .... If you want to fight to enforce their right, go for it. I'll let them do their own battle on this one. jttmab