Re: Guns'n stuff
James J Rovira (jrovira@juno.com)
Mon, 03 May 1999 12:14:04 -0400 (EDT)
>I was under the impression that the reason our Founding Father
>declared the
>right to bear arms was because at the time the 13 colonies didn't have
>a
>national militia; instead, we relied on ordinary citizens to fight the
>British. These citizens needed muskets, etc. Hence the right to bear
>arms. I doubt Jefferson, et al. would condone the right to own a
>Saturday
>Night Special or an AK 47!!
>
>--renee
I guess we need to ask ourselves what we're really discussing...the
complete disarmament of citizens of the Untied States, or just gun
control. Current laws already exclude the possession of an AK-47, to my
knowledge.
You do have a good point about the national militia, however. But I
think the intent of the militia is that the citizens themselves possess
the power to defend themselves.
Just imagine what we're talking about if you really want to define this
in terms of the 13 colonies. Every home with an adult male would have at
least one gun, and that male would have at least rudimentary military
training. If we limit the right to bear arms to this context, we would
have to expand the proliferation of guns.
I know you're interpreting the amendment so that it implies this right is
only in effect within the context of a well-organized militia -- thus we
would not possess this right outside that. But the language of the text
is intended to exclude banning the possession of guns by the populace.
If it'll make you happier, we can make participation in a state militia
and gun ownership mandatory for all adults :)
<<we are no longer fighting the british, put your guns away, boys.
mathew.>>
no one said we were :)
Jim
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]