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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (28802)	6/30/2008 1:33:32 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

That guy needs to read the Constitutions of most of the states. That would tell him what the fathers meant

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (28802)	7/1/2008 3:46:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

What this neglects is the central point in dispute in 1787-1789: whether that traditional militia was what the framers of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment meant to preserve—or whether, based on its controversial performance during the Revolutionary War, it was what they meant to allow future Congresses, in their wisdom, to replace. Paying attention to how the militia clause was discussed both at Philadelphia in 1787 and during the ratification debates that followed demonstrates that this was what was actually at issue, not the private possession of firearms. If the militia was an important issue being considered at the time, that does not suggest that the right was only to be confired on, or recognized and codified for the militia. The private possetion of firearms wouldn't be a big issue for discussion if it was not a big controversial change but was just part of the normal expectations of the time. The lack of such discussion hardly serves as evidence for Rakove's overall point. Also no where in the article is there any quote of or actual analysis of the debate or contemporary discussions of it, so the article is just providing assertion, not real evidence or much in the way of argument.