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 (6122)	8/21/2001 1:06:14 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 93284

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. I do not claim that everything should be just as the founders of our country wanted it to be. But to the extent that we can determine the original intent of the creators of the constitution it serves as a useful guide to what the words mean, if and where the meaning of the words it uses are unclear. The constitution does not forbid a standing army or even hint at it. It does directly say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't limit this right to the militia but for those who think it does it might be useful to examine what the militia was at the time. The militia in some places had some organization but not everyone who would fight with the militia in times of trouble was part of this organization and not every militia had much organization for them to be a part of. All of the militias relied on people having their own weapons, and many of them, in times of trouble, relied on people that where not part of any militia organization showing up with their own weapons to help out. 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. It would rather mean that the Supreme Court misinterpreted our constitution so as no to protect our constitutional right. The specific law - United Stated Code (USC) TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES Section 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. "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. This isn't an unreasonable assumption unless the standard at the time was to allow convicted felons to carry weapons. If it was then this particular argument goes done in flames if not it is still probably weaker then the 2nd argument. 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]? What is the "National Reserve"? Do you mean the National Guard and the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine reserves? If so then these things are not equivalent to "the people", or even "the militia". Tim