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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (13496)	11/4/1997 11:49:00 PM
From: Skipper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, Some first thoughts. 1. The second amendment does not use the term "organized" militia. It says "well regulated". I would like to see the justification for equating the two. Perhaps I didn't read far enough. 2. Although the militia may have been used as an instrument of the state government, that is different than saying it may only exist at the behest of the state government. I doubt that the country's founders would have said so. 3. Prove the equation: militia = National Guard. 4. In the interview, we are told "virtually all able-bodied men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were enlisted for military discipline in the militia", then "...the militia, that is, the National Guard..." By the first definition militia does not equal National Guard. More later... Skipper

To: Grainne who wrote (13496)	11/5/1997 12:27:00 AM
From: Skipper	Respond to of 108807

Christine, "it was fifty years before even large cities had organized police departments to protect the citizenry." You seem to have a lot of faith in goverment. If you champion the police, do you then feel no responsibility for incidents such as occurred with Rodney King? "Do you really think that you can out-shoot the U.S. government?" I have no desire to out-shoot the U.S. government. I'm not a member of any militia, nor have I even fired a gun for about 6 years. Nor do I care much about people like Timothy McVeigh, except to wonder how the government, and its supporters, can fail to understand cause and effect. Skipper

To: Grainne who wrote (13496)	11/5/1997 12:26:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

>> the actual intent of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to ensure that each state within the United States would have a trained, official, "well-regulated" fighting force in place in order to prevent the federal government from becoming overly powerful. Not sure I agree. "Well regulated" had nothing to do with being properly supervised. It hwas a much more practical turn of phrase: able to hit the target. The concept hearkens bach to (I'm blanking on details) the English king who issued directives to his common subjects to practice the longbow, since a successful guerilla campaign had stopped the French armored force. A crowd of farmers who had good bows and knew how to hit with them constituted a "well regulated militia". My other point of disagreement is the idea that the 2nd amendment was ablut states' rights. I assert that it was aimed at the citizenry-at-large. I think that the text of the 2nd makes the suggested idea, which suggests locked armories full of ordnance controlled by State gov'ts, a restrictive fabrication. I mean, like, how do we take the message to the CA gov't that we're getting our tushes double-taxed off at the state level? The Bill of Rights, in my considered opinion, is about citizens one by one. I see that Henigan disagrees. Bummer. I think that we won't get resolution on the issue until the 2nd amendment is dragged before the Supreme Court by the NRA or its archnemesis, Handgun Control Inc., with the lamentation "Will you please finally tell us what this means in plain English!" I notice Henigan tries to make the "Logical extension" to hand grenades and ballistic missiles. Hogwash&rabblerousing of the lowest sort. No informed gun proponent would ever try to lump what Federal law classifies as a "destructive device" (any explosive, including incendiary or explosive ammunition) into the category of civilian firearms. Outshooting the Government isn't the point; being treated like valied citizens (barring psychosis or a conviction) is. Finally: storing your weapons at shooting ranges. Objection No. 1. I like to clean my guns well; this takes time and effort. Best done in the living room while half-watching Beavis&Butt-head. I won't trust anyone else with the surprisingly delicate barrel steel of my "good'n's". Objection no. 2. I imagine the ranges would charge for the honor of holding my guns secure. I do it for free. Objection No. 3. If the storage-at-range is an act of law, I'd find this to be a serious erosion of privilege.

To: Grainne who wrote (13496)	11/6/1997 9:21:00 AM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine: Not only are you NOT a Libertarian -- you are not an historian! To wit: "the actual intent of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to ensure that each state within the United States would have a trained, official, "well-regulated" fighting force in place in order to prevent the federal government from becoming overly powerful." Christine, the federal government did not exist at that time! (And perhaps it should not exist now. . . it could be replaced by a confederacy). Father Terrence