SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Lane3 who wrote (94424)1/9/2005 3:34:57 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793804
 
I think the Second Amendment protects the right to own guns because gun ownership is necessary for a militia. I think the term "militia" describes something informal, which can be formed ad hoc in times of necessity.

For example, you and Unclewest were talking about smallpox. If society broke down due to a massive smallpox epidemic, neighborhoods would be forced to establish neighborhood watches in order to prevent looting.

If a massive tsunami hit the East or West coast, same thing.

This isn't so far fetched, we've seen it on a smaller scale after hurricanes and earthquakes. The authorities are forced to deputize the citizenry, and they need to be armed in order to be effective.



To: Lane3 who wrote (94424)1/10/2005 9:16:42 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793804
 
You subscribe to the plain language of the constitution. The plain language says that the second amendment was about facilitating a militia.

Edit - It gives as rhetorical support for the amendment but it doesn't say or even suggest that the amendment is limited to milita purposes.

Tim


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News