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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (36694)	3/3/1999 3:14:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

The issue is being decided where it should be in my state. At the ballot box. We already know it is Constitutional to bear arms, the voters get to decide whether or not the state will validate that right. bp

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (36694)	3/3/1999 3:19:00 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 67261

the NRAs claim that, essentially, the right to bear arms is written down, therefore, that means any citizen can carry any type of weapon anywhere at any time. You are misinformed about their position. They are on record supporting the 60 year old ban on automatic weapons.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (36694)	3/3/1999 3:20:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<What did the right to bear arms mean to the framers? Not assault weapons!>> I see no reason to believe that it meant "not assault weapons." I keep hearing people say you don't use an assault weapon to go deer hunting. Granted the NRA'ers are avid hunters. So what. The intent of the framers was not to ensure hunting privileges it was to ensure any individual that he could be as well equiped as the next guy. Thus reducing the threat as you meantioned earlier of Governmental corruption. I think we do need to stop and think about what it meant to the framers. They are not gods. If their intentions for the constitution are outdated lets revise the constitution. If the principle foundations of the constitution aren't supported lets have a constitutional convention and draft a new one. If the powers that be are so corrupt that we can't get government that is relevent to the needs of the people lets have another revolution.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (36694)	3/3/1999 7:43:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>How come this argument has been made time and time again in support of assault weapons etc. and when the definition of "high crime" comes up, oh wait - we need to determine what it meant to the framers? What did the right to bear arms mean to the framers? Not assault weapons!< Michelle. Your argument is seriously flawed. I unfortunately cannot devote time to the thing, but I will tell you that merely because the NRA doesn't, as you erroneously claim, refer to the original intent of the framers is no reason to claim they err. They are not logically forced toward original intent merely because some Republicans referred to it. You would have a better case were the NRA to have argued for original intent concerning the term "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" but failed to do the same concerning the Constitutional right to "bear arms". Secondly, you err in your implication here that the NRA has argued to refer to the original intent of the term "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" regarding the Clinton impeachment. Perhaps the NRA did such a thing, but I have not seen it. Where did you see it? I have seen that it was at one time a major Democrat position that reference to the original framers' intent concerning the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a requirement before proceeding with the impeachment. While the NRA was apparently silent on the impeachment issue, some Republicans persistently claimed it clear Clinton's misdeeds rose to the level of impeachable offenses, this, without many appeals (but they did make some appeals) to the framers. And they were right, because just as many of those in your camp now admit, Clinton has seriously abused the public's trust such that now nothing he says is much believed. According to Federalist #65 he is a political criminal and appropriately was impeached. >This is a very relevant argument, we have one group of people taking two opposing stances on how to interpret historical documents. Its one or the other.< Thirdly, you erroneously claim we have one group taking two positions-- referring to original intent on impeachment, and not referring to original intent on bearing arms. Who is this group? I am not yet convinced it was the NRA because I have myself read the NRA referring to the framers' original intent for the second Amendment. They have informed their constituents that the point of the second Amendment was to allow citizens to be prepared to fight against a government they deem hostile to their interests. You want not to have it both ways? Good. Me either. Let us refer to original intent regarding both impeachment and the bearing of arms. Then philosophically we can lynch Clinton and have the right to own tanks and nuclear weapons. (grin) btw. In answer to your question "What did the right to bear arms mean to the framers? Not assault weapons!", considering the original intent of "bearing arms", the framers definitely meant assault weapons.