Nice!! good for you Barrett

[Charon]

Nothing really happened until our first socialist president FDR opened the flood gates. It's a slippery slope, as they say...

Yeah, in a belated response to the failed "war on alcohol" -- another case where you blame the symptom instead of the problem.

Charon

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Charon

at least finestein was honest about why she wanted em banned and didn't use the "save the children" excuse...

She wanted em banned because they could shoot through the armor of an armor plated limmo.

lazs

This is the mayor that bulldozed Meigs Field (which he had been trying to do for years) in the middle of the night shortly after 9/11 as a "homeland security" measure


Kalifornia is actually downright conservative on the 2nd compared to Daley. I can only assume that the little dicktator has had his ego bruised by getting his past banning efforts solidly resisted, and now it's personal. For example, the latest versions of the AWB at the county and state levels do not feature a grandfather clause, even though that would make it easier to pass them in the long run. He just want's to stick it to us. And, the Illinois/Krook Kounty AWBs are far more restrictive than the former federal ban.

Charon

Feinstein is a Senator and hasn't been a mayor since the '80s when she was the mayor of San Francisco.  She's pro-gun control because one of her good friends and colleague was assassinated by a disgruntled ex-cop.



ack-ack

[Charon]

Ack Ack, I was responding to Lazs. The mayor I reference, the one that bulldozed Miegs Field in Chicago, is Daley.

I do believe Feinstein comes by it naturally, which I can respect. I disagree with her conclusions and focus, but understand how she arrived there. However, it's hard to respect her obtaing one of the rare California carry permits -- apparently being the only one to possess a permit one point -- while refusing her fellow citizens the same right to self protection. In fact, most political banners hide behing formal armed security themselves, while denying those most in need the basic right to self protection in the communities they serve.

Charon

[Nashwan]

Seriously, how many multimillionaires are going to waste there money on nukes?

I'm sure OBL would have happily funded Jose Padilla's purchase of a few nukes.

I'm also fairly sure Timothy McVeigh could have scraped together enough funding for one.

But nukes are just the most extreme end of the spectrum. Think there's anyone who'd have enough money to buy a shoulder launched SAM to bring down an airliner? Again, plenty of funding would be available from external, if not internal, sources, I am sure.

What many people fail to realize is that a nuclear weapon is useless-unless you have enough of them to blow up the world.

Not if you are a nutter with an agenda.

If North Korea decided to incinerate Tokyo what would it accomplish besides getting itself turned into a glass parking lot?

Nothing. But if North Korea could channel funds to an extremist group in the US, who could then buy their own nuclear weapon, to use inside the US?

And as far as the infringement of out rights in the twentieth century goes, you're right. Nothing really happened until our first socialist president FDR opened the flood gates. It's a slippery slope, as they say...

So would you be prepared to have all weapons on sale to US citizens? Nukes, chemical, biological, SAMs, ATGMs, grenades, mortars, artillery, tanks, fighters, bombers, etc?

Think everyone should have the right to their own weaponised anthrax? Think militia groups should be allowed to manufacture Sarin and own stinger missiles?

I believe there has always been a clear seperation of ordnance and arms under the Constitution according to the definitions of the day (that still largely apply today). Ordinance may not have been specifically prohibited, but they were not specifically protected either.

The definition of Arms did not, at the time, include cannons, etc. and it does not today.

Can you support that? If the intention of the 2nd is that people should be able to stand up to their government, then they need a full range of weaponry. It ain't about hunting, after all.

[sluggish]

Originally posted by Nashwan
I'm sure OBL would have happily funded Jose Padilla's purchase of a few nukes.

I'm also fairly sure Timothy McVeigh could have scraped together enough funding for one.

But nukes are just the most extreme end of the spectrum. Think there's anyone who'd have enough money to buy a shoulder launched SAM to bring down an airliner? Again, plenty of funding would be available from external, if not internal, sources, I am sure.



Not if you are a nutter with an agenda.



Nothing. But if North Korea could channel funds to an extremist group in the US, who could then buy their own nuclear weapon, to use inside the US?



So would you be prepared to have all weapons on sale to US citizens? Nukes, chemical, biological, SAMs, ATGMs, grenades, mortars, artillery, tanks, fighters, bombers, etc?

Think everyone should have the right to their own weaponised anthrax? Think militia groups should be allowed to manufacture Sarin and own stinger missiles?



Can you support that? If the intention of the 2nd is that people should be able to stand up to their government, then they need a full range of weaponry. It ain't about hunting, after all.

I'm trying to figure out which end of this you're trying to play.  It almost seems that you are implying that the Constitution is an out-dated document that needs to be replaced.

[Charon]

Can you support that? If the intention of the 2nd is that people should be able to stand up to their government, then they need a full range of weaponry. It ain't about hunting, after all.

Easily. There is no "If" by the way and it never has been, even minutely, about hunting or sporting. The long drawn out debate over the role of a standing army vs "national guard style militia" vs "people casual militia" is well documented. It was all about power to the people or state.

As I said, the difference between Arms and Ordnance were clearly understood at the time. From another site/poster on the subject:

Websters Dictionary of 1828 (appropriate time period NOTE I cut some non weapons related references from the definition)

'ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body. [edit: clearly personal weapons]

2. War; hostility.

Arms and the man I sing.

To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.

To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.

To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.

(sic)Sire(sic) (probably Fire) arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c. [edit: a broader coverage here for the general term "fire arms" meaning powder weapons]

A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary. [edit: now back to the point]

ORD'NANCE, n. [from ordinance.] Cannon or great guns, mortars and howitzers; artillery.

See, the distinction is clear, and was very clear at the time.

The Federalist No. 46:

" Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

500,000 armed citizens vs 30,000 with cannons etc. is a fair exchange. Especially after the 500,000 begin to liberate ordnance. The founders were apparently content with the capabilities of personal arms, as they had just fought a revolution and knew what even a lightly armed population could accomplish against even the most powerful military power in the world at the time.

Timothy McVeigh could have scraped together enough funding for one

He didn't really need to though. The deadliest nutters can generate huge body counts with diesel and fertilizer, or gasoline and a match or a boxcutter and an airliner. Simple, cheap, far more effective than a firearm and generating far less suspicion than towing a howitzer though the street, which, as noted is ordnance is not protected by the 2nd or obtainable anyway.

Charon

[sluggish]

Excellent info Charon.  I'll buy it.

[lazs2]

nashwan...  I believe that it is the brady bunch of anti gunners who do not want the situation brought up about what constitutes "arms"

The NRA knows full well what is meant by arms and is perfectly willing to fight for the right to keep and bear arms.   This would include machine guns.  but not explosives or explosive ord or guns or weapons that could not be carried by a citizen.

We were allowed to own machine guns in an unrestricted fashion until the thirties and.... despite the government creating a huge criminal class with a ban on booze... very few were every killed by any type of machine gun.

Fully automatic weapons are still owned by private citizens and were relatively easy to get and get permission to own...  no crime has ever been commited with one of these weapons so far as I know.

Citizens should be able to have fully automatic weapons so long as they are sane and adult.    They are often less dangerous to the public than say... a shotgun.   Most military and special forces will tell you that you kill the guy with a shotgun before you kill the sub machine gun wielder as he is a bigger threat.

Nope... it is not the NRA that is afraid to take the second to the supreme court but the anti gun nuts.  

The "sensible" restrictions you speak of are only "sensible" to the rabid anti gun nuts that rammed em down our throat and the metrosexual sissies who are frieghtened of firearms.   To the rest... they aren't so much "sensible" but the best comprimise we could get at the time.

The sunseting of the so called "assault weapon" ban and high capacity magazine ban shows this to be true.... the only squealing and whining was from the scum of the earth politicians.... there were no demonstrations by the people... most were simply bored or relieved or didn't care one way or the other.

There are 80-90 million firearms owners in the U.S. and more every year.

lazs

[storch]

thanks for that post charon I was racking my brain trying to recall which paper actually gave the breakdown suggested by adams.

what that then translates to today would be that a citizen should be able to amble up the neighborhood gun shop and walk out with a M249 or any other weapon up to an M2.

[lazs2]

not at all  strorch...  there are many laws against explosives.   Explosives are not arms.   There are laws against hazardous materials and there are storage laws for even small amounts of explosives in urban areas.

You could buy an mg34 say or m3 grease gun but not the rounds for a 203

you could have a 20mm lahti but only armor piercing rounds could be stored at your home.

lazs