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 : Guns and Weapons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WTSherman who wrote (18)	4/26/1999 8:45:00 AM
From: Fangorn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149

WT. You said... "Over two hundred years this has been twisted into unabridged right to possess any kind of weapon that people would like to possess for whatever reason they would like to possess it." This is unadulterated horse crap and we all know it. End of discussion on my part. You may continue to delude yourself as long as you want. Good by.

To: WTSherman who wrote (18)	4/27/1999 5:25:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149

Let me put it this way. Here's the sentence..."A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I maintain that the people weren't granted the right to keep and bear arms in order to BE the militia ...they were granted that right in order to REGULATE it. Which is fully logical by the sentence. Let's break the sentence down. Logically, it's an argument with a premise followed by a conclusion- the conclusion being law. The basic premise is that a militia is necessary for defense. If they intended people to have arms so they'd be prepared to fall together on a moments notice for the common defense, they could have said simply "A militia is necessary" therefore the people must be allowed to have arms so they can be it. But the words "well regulated" were significantly inserted. Now I ask you, does a bunch of scattered folks falling together as needed sound like a well regulated militia? NO! Clearly this sentence anticipated the creation of a trained and ready force as existed in most countries of the time, no? YES! The words "well regulated" were inserted to assuage the very real concerns that we might become a military state as a result. Of course! How do you protect against that? Conclusion and law- "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed" Now, if you find a way to bring any sense to that sentence other than the above, have at it. I think it's logical and self-evident that this is what it means. If you want to say it EVER was intended to mean that a well regulated militia could or should consist of scattered citizens with arms(I know, others claim it), you are WAY off base. IMHO. "Well regulated militia" does not and did not imply a bunch of unidentifiable gun owners falling together as needed. Such a force would be uncoordinated in battle- with no clear chain of command. This interpretation is silly all the way around IMHO. "Well regulated" means your necessary, trained, and ready militia will not turn on you. Forgive my rambling, it's late. ..but that is damn sure what they meant!