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: Sidney Reilly who wrote (36670)	5/2/1999 8:48:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Thomas Jefferson: "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots." He wasn't talking about outside enemies, either.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (36670)	5/2/1999 9:06:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Sidney, no court decision has clearly upheld the meaning of the Second Amendment to be that individuals have the right to be armed. If you could cite the actual cases, I would be interested, but I watched an interview with Charlton Heston this morning, and he certainly did not mention any. Logically speaking, don't you think that if court decisions were being made that supported the NRA positions, we would be hearing about them everywhere, every day? This blurb off the web is unclear as to its sponsor, and therefore I am not comfortable in relying upon it, and I am not presenting it as any part of a scholarly debate, but it does discuss the issues you raise: "Is there a Second Amendment right to carry handguns? Though there is a great deal of confusion in the public and political spheres about the meaning of the Second Amendment, the courts have been incredibly clear and united in their interpretation.The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently and uniformly held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is related to "a well-regulated militia" and that there are no federal constitutional decisions which preclude regulation of firearms in private hands. In fact, no legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds. Pro-gun groups have attempted to get around the language of the Second Amendment by arguing that the militia is in fact the general citizenry. This view has not become accepted by the legal community as the modern definition of a "well regulated militia" has consistently been defined as the National Guard. Since the firearms used by the National Guard are not privately owned, any legislation dealing with the private ownership of firearms does not violate the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, a majority of the general public, as well as legislators, believe that the Second Amendment does ensure the right to private ownership of firearms. This was evidenced in a 1991 Los Angeles Times poll on the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights which showed that 62 percent of those surveyed believed the Second Amendment guaranteed a right to private ownership of guns. This widely held belief can be seen most visibly when legislation that attempts to tighten gun control is put forward and a furious debate ensues. Ironically, while pro-gun groups have been successful in gathering public support for the belief that there is an individual right to bear arms, they have been reluctant to use the same reasoning in their legal challenges to gun control legislation. For example, recent litigation by the NRA over the Brady Bill, a law requiring background checks for all handgun purchases, was argued and decided on Tenth and not Second Amendment grounds. The NRA knows that the legal precedent to sue on Second Amendment grounds simply does not exist as a challenge to any gun laws. As former United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren said, the use of the Second Amendment by the NRA and other pro-gun groups to justify a personal right to firearm ownership is 'a fraud on the American people.'" insync.net I find it extremely scary that, like Lather, you believe that your freedom is preserved by being fully armed. I think the way this country started, rebelling against England, has somehow frozen the rational minds of quite a few of its citizens even now, making them paranoid. And I think that makes America a needlessly dangerous place to be.