[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Dennis J Perkins]

> Also, keep in mind that the Constitution does *not* grant you the right
> to have a *gun*, it grants you the right to keep and bear *arms*.  While
> this may seem like a piddling distinction, it can be important.  In the
> strictest reading of that, I should have the right to keep and bear a 50
> megaton nuclear bomb.  But then again, in the *strictest* interpretation
> of the Constitution, I may only have the right to use arms in association
> with a militia (presumably to protect myself and the community at
> large).  What does that mean?  Can I only have a gun if am a member of
> some kind of militia?

The constitution affirms your right to bear arms.  It does not specify 
the type of firearm but you need only look at what people owned when the 
constitution was signed to see that guns were definitely meant. 
Considering that most individuals would not have been able to afford a 
cannon, the framers might have thought it obvious what they meant.  Or 
maybe they meant cannons too.

The constitution does not require you to belong to a militia.  Otherwise 
the federal govt would have "tried" to confiscate firearms after the 
constitution was ratified.  And look at the definition of militia at 
that time.  It probably included all able-bodied men in time of war and 
did not apply to a permanent organization.

That the constitution seems vague in the definition of firearm is not 
the fault of the founding fathers. They could not have foreseen that our 
weapons would become much more dangerous.

What do the Federalist Papers say about this?  They were written to help 
argue in favor of the constitution.