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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (334996)	4/23/2007 8:28:47 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574906

From what I remember some wanted that wording, so it was a trade off. to get all the states to join there were a lot of trade offs, like the 3/5ths rule. But all the Fathers knew it meant the individual owning guns to fight off a tyrannical gov.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (334996)	4/23/2007 10:39:40 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574906

"it does not logically follow that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' may be now infringed." That is a different argument. Shorty was using the Federalist Papers as proving the Framers intended people to own guns just because. Madison argued for something pretty narrow, and most of those conditions don't apply anymore. Now, the fact those conditions don't apply doesn't mean the right should be rescinded. As you point out. But no one was making that argument. As I have stated, and you seem to agree with, I would like to see a requirement for a gun handling course. From what I have heard, the NRA has some excellent ones. Why don't they float the idea that their course be required for first time gun owners?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (334996)	4/24/2007 12:10:07 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574906

"If, for argument's sake, a civilian 'well-regulated militia' is no longer 'necessary to the preservation of a free State,' it does not logically follow that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' may be now infringed. To so conclude would be to commit the fallacy of 'denying the antecedent.' In illustrating the fallacious logic entailed in denying the antecedent, an analogous but simpler syllogism may be used: 'If it is raining, there are clouds. It is not raining. Therefore, there are no clouds.' The conclusion is obviously fallacious, for there may in fact be clouds even though it is not raining." Owning guns is not an act of nature......and so because one event happens does not mean another should or should not happen. Allowing the ownership of guns was deemed a necessity when the nation was first formed.....because there were no police, no militia and no standing army. Fast forward three hundred years......all those institutions now exist. A civilized society can not afford to have 300 million people running around with guns in order to insure successful interactions with other people. It is leading to violence and misery, and eventually, could result in anarchy.