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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (94235)	1/8/2005 8:33:56 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793752

..<How far would you be willing to take that? Logically, you would have to believe that the people should be able to possess any and all weapons necessary to wage modern war.>> Not sure anyone challenged the law in regards to definition of arms including cannons. Fascinating how the framers of the Constitution could sum up the "laws" in such short sentences leaving the concept but excluding the legalese. Makes it almost intelligible, understandable In regards to 'arms' and considering it was frontier days then arms would include bows and arrows, swords, knives, rocks, pistols, rifles,muskets - anything commonly needed to defend ones self from animals or humans or to obtain food. 'Bear' would mean to possess, to carry with one, to use. I see no problem with possessing a small cannon, but loading it and pointing it at the County Courthouse ( as might be considered in King County) could be prosecuted under State laws. Pretty neat the way gun laws have developed without the need violate the Constitution. One still has the right to possess a gun, but you need a permit to carry one in certain areas or circumstances. Airline pilots, police, security personnel, store owners, etc. Lawyers can make a living arguing about the possession of machine guns or automatic weapons. I will let someone else look up the laws about parking a cannon on the front lawn. Sig

To: Ilaine who wrote (94235)	1/8/2005 9:07:35 AM
From: Hoa Hao	Respond to of 793752

"...or their own warships?" Well, there were such things as Privateers. Historically, "the militia" as well as individuals owned cannon. At either Lexinton or Concord, the militia hid a cannon in a pigsty that the Brits never found. Lots of those old fashion cannons at flagpoles in front of town courthouses were donated by private owners from what I've read. I do not know what the limitations are on "Destructive devices", but you can still own some heavy duty stuff and you don't read much about people running amuck with it. It's interesting to see people upset about assault rifles yet the unibomber functioned for years making destructive devices, sending them through the mail, and never got caught til his brother turned him in. It's hard to live in a industrial society and keep a lid on the ability of people to make stuff out of common household items. uw could probably do it in a heart beat.

To: Ilaine who wrote (94235)	1/8/2005 9:13:43 AM
From: aladin	Respond to of 793752

CB, I believe it means that I have the right to a Stinger anti-aircraft missile. Anything that can be hand carried and shoulder fired should be legal. I need it to defend the compound when the UN sends the black helicopters. John@thiscangetrealabsurd.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (94235)	1/8/2005 9:15:40 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793752

That end of the firepower debate was settled early in the last century. It is usually brought up to distract attention from the battle at the other end of the spectrum which is ongoing. Radical abolitionists, despite the clear English of the Constitution, the clear intent of the Framers, and the clear desire of a super majority of Americans, still argue it is acceptable under the Constitution for government to confiscate ALL firearms. That’s the fight we are fighting today. Logically, you would have to believe that the people should be able to possess any and all weapons necessary to wage modern war.