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: Skipper who wrote (13499)	11/6/1997 1:22:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Skipper, I am a little behind in answering posts, so I will start with just one of yours. I was simply trying to give some historical background on what the situation was in revolutionary America when the Bill of Rights was drafted. I definitely do NOT believe: militia = National Guard, and in fact the National Guard did not start until 112 years later. There were state militias in 1776, but they dwindled over time as it became apparent that they were unnecessary. I guess you could say, though, that the National Guard ultimately replaced state militias. What is your point here, anyway? In 1776 American revolutionaries had just overthrown the British government. They were afraid of national governments in general, and it was their goal that the states remain strong. The militias were to ensure that the federal government did not overpower the states. "Well regulated" to me connotes some concept like organized, OR different from a bunch of yahoos running around armed in a situation of near anarchy. As well, guns were essential for protection in a new country without police forces, and for hunting. I am simply pointing out that regardless of how you interpret the intention of the framers of the Bill or Rights, our need for weapons has evolved significantly. Are you one of the people who would argue that regardless of the societal cost, Americans forever must maintain the right to own handguns because two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a very different situation, it made practical sense? This is what the ACLU says about handguns and individual freedoms. I am not a fan of the ACLU in most situations, because I think the balance of fairness has moved too much towards criminals in their advocacy of individual freedoms, but I read this and much of it is logical to me. I am perfectly willing to be persuaded to change my mind on the issue of handguns if I can be convinced that they make America a better place. Do you believe that? Can you refute all the points the ACLU makes? aclu-sc.org