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: DMaA who wrote (94248)	1/8/2005 9:40:59 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793755

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 still 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. I am not up to speed on this issue. I have no position on this as of this moment. My initial thoughts are that the framers of the Constitution wanted the people to have the ability to overthrow the government if the government no longer served the people. By that, I would think they would not bar citizens from having any restrictions as to what they are allowed to have in terms of weapons. On this matter, however, there was just no way the framers of the Constitution could ever imagine that you could someday develop nuclear weapons that could be hand held. Nevertheless, we would still have to guess as to what the framers of the Constitution would have wrote if they knew what the future held. I am completely agnostic on this issue as of the moment.

To: DMaA who wrote (94248)	1/8/2005 10:01:25 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

That end of the firepower debate was settled early in the last century. "Separate but equal" was settled in the 19th century, too, but didn't remain settled in the 20th. Roe v. Wade was settled last century but I bet it doesn't remain settled in this one. despite the clear English of the Constitution Well, it's certainly not clear to me what they meant. I would argue that they meant that the people should be able to overthrow the government in the event that the government became tyrannical. If the government has nuclear weapons and the people don't, the people are certainly at a disadvantage. the clear intent of the Framers How on earth can we know what everybody who was at the Constitutional Convention thought about anything? Most did not keep notes. and the clear desire of a super majority of Americans Absolutely irrelevant for purposes of divining what the Second Amendment actually means. Unless you buy the "living breathing" method of interpretation.

To: DMaA who wrote (94248)	1/8/2005 10:10:55 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793755

By the way, I don't really want the people to have nuclear weapons. But, I think that the plain English of the Constitution and the intent of the framers was that the people should be able to defend themselves against a future King George by any means necessary and available to them. They just did not foresee nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers and satellites and so forth. I just hate being on the receiving end of a self-serving lecture that the Constitution means what the person says it means, and that this is obviously the intent of the Framers and the plain language of the Constitution. Almost always these lectures come from non-lawyers, or, if they do come from a lawyer, one without a very good imagination. Someone dull, boring, earnest, and without insight, like Bork. I would love to be able to confront Scalia, whom I love, and point out just how self-serving his little rants are, just to see if he realizes how often he's blowing smoke. All he really means is that he's right, and the others are wrong. Well, everybody else thinks that they're right, too, but they don't wrap themselves in the mantle of the Founding Fathers with such vigorous flourishes. Any good lawyer with a good imagination could give you an entire spectrum of contradictory takes on any provision in the Constitution, with excellent support from the Federalist Papers or the Anti-Federalist Papers and a good dictionary.