Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: -MZ- on September 14, 2004, 08:09:09 PM
-
LOS ANGELES TIMES
September 14, 2004
Gov. Signs Bill Banning .50-Calibers
Measure outlawing the rifles comes the same day a federal assault weapons ban expires. For Schwarzenegger, it's a break with the GOP.
By Jordan Rau and Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writers
SACRAMENTO — Highlighting a difference over gun control with President Bush and the Republican Party, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday signed legislation banning .50-caliber BMG rifles.
The contrast was underscored as the signing was announced the same day the 10-year-old federal ban on assault weapons expired.
Although the two bans targeted different weapons, both concerned the same intense debate over whether they were common-sense limitations on weapons no one needs to have or fruitless symbolic gestures that would not help improve public safety.
The .50-caliber weapons are typically used by game hunters and firing-range enthusiasts, who hold competitions with long-range targets. The rifles cost at least $2,500 and can exceed $7,000, according to the Fifty Caliber Shooters Assn., a Utah-based group.
In May 2003, the Los Angeles City Council banned the sale of the weapons, saying they could penetrate concrete and armor. But a statewide measure sponsored by Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) was defeated that year after lobbying by the National Rifle Assn. and gun owners.
Koretz wrote this year's measure, AB 50, which bans the sale of the rifles beginning Jan. 1. Under the bill, people who already own the rifles could register them through April 2006 after paying a $25 fee. Violators could be convicted of a misdemeanor. The bill also increases jail terms to as long as 12 years for those who use the rifles in an assault.
Gun advocates complained that there was no evidence the guns had been used to commit crimes in the state, and that backers of the bill were unfairly trying to use public concern about terrorism to outlaw specialty firearms. They said criminals would be unlikely to choose the guns, which can weigh 28 pounds or more.
The bill's signing was another legislative example of Schwarzenegger diverging from the GOP not only in Washington, but in Sacramento.
The bill passed the Assembly 45 to 32 and the Senate 21 to 14, with most Republicans voting against it.
"During the recall election, Gov. Schwarzenegger pledged that he would support the ban of .50-caliber rifles," said Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the governor. "He remains committed to keeping the public and our law enforcement officers as safe as possible, and to that extent he believes that reasonable gun control measures are necessary."
A number of bills will further test Schwarzenegger's ideological harmony with the GOP. At the end of its session last month, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed dozens of bills along partisan lines, including ones easing the importation of prescription drugs and raising the minimum wage.
"It underscores that he is really staking out his own turf as a conservative Republican on fiscal issues but not on social issues," said Larry Gerston, a political science professor at San Jose State.
"It doesn't satisfy either extreme, but it seems to be embraced by those in the middle, and really that's been the strength of his popularity to this point."
Also Monday, Schwarzenegger signed legislation that makes it a misdemeanor for hotels or motels to raise room rates by more than 10% in the month after the state declares an emergency for earthquakes, fires or other such catastrophes. Sen. Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego) sponsored SB 1363.
-
thats the most idiotic thing ive ever heard
"Also Monday, Schwarzenegger signed legislation that makes it a misdemeanor for hotels or motels to raise room rates by more than 10% in the month after the state declares an emergency for earthquakes, fires or other such catastrophes. Sen. Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego) sponsored SB 1363."
but they can still charge room rates by the hour :lol
-
Yup, Arnold is all about Arnold.
How many crimes have been committed with .50s in California?
-
Originally posted by ra
Yup, Arnold is all about Arnold.
How many crimes have been committed with .50s in California?
All of them, hence the ban. Right? Anyone? Bueller?
-
are dems supposed to like Arnold now because he signed a bill, or are republicans supposed to hate him now?
It's refreshing to see someone make decisions he thinks are right, even if I don't agree with them. I can't say I mind seeing someone break the 2 party system down.
The real question is: Is this contrary to what Arnold said he would do? I believe the answer to that is "no". He was clear on his position on the issues from the elections and seems to be sticking by his guns. DAMN HIM!
Politics should be about stating your position and letting people vote based on it, then actually sticking to those positions after getting elected.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Politics should be about stating your position and letting people vote based on it, then actually sticking to those positions after getting elected.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Politics should be about stating your position and letting people vote based on it, then actually sticking to those positions after getting elected.
Let the record show that I actually agreed with that before I disagreed with that.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let the record show that I actually agreed with that before I disagreed with that.
Wow Toad, you are such a complex thinker!!! :D
-
Unconstitutional.
I wish someone would challenge Californias disregard for Federal law.
You can ban the import, sale, transportation, manufacture and ammunition but you can't ban ownership of a firearm.
California gun owners. Stand up!
Your state law cannot violate Federal law!
-
Originally posted by Blooz
Unconstitutional.
I wish someone would challenge Californias disregard for Federal law.
You can ban the import, sale, transportation, manufacture and ammunition but you can't ban ownership of a firearm.
California gun owners. Stand up!
Your state law cannot violate Federal law!
stop crying Charlie Brown....it's the law of the land.....enjoy it.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
SACRAMENTO — Highlighting a difference over gun control with President Bush and the Republican Party, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday signed legislation banning .50-caliber BMG rifles.
What a surprise... Arnold doesn't quite fit the Republican mold (this just in), but he got the nod from the GOP simply because he was electable and he's good for marketing.
-
Originally posted by Blooz
Unconstitutional.
I wish someone would challenge Californias disregard for Federal law.
You can ban the import, sale, transportation, manufacture and ammunition but you can't ban ownership of a firearm.
California gun owners. Stand up!
Your state law cannot violate Federal law!
Not a single gun control law has ever been struck down by the Supreme Court as un-Constitutional. Not one.
-
Originally posted by Blooz
Unconstitutional.
I wish someone would challenge Californias disregard for Federal law.
You can ban the import, sale, transportation, manufacture and ammunition but you can't ban ownership of a firearm.
California gun owners. Stand up!
Your state law cannot violate Federal law!
what about illegal aliens. against federal laws. shoot them or give them driver's licenses?
destroyer of senses
-
Originally posted by vorticon
but they can still charge room rates by the hour :lol
oldest profession? :lol
-
Originally posted by ra
Yup, Arnold is all about Arnold.
How many crimes have been committed with .50s in California?
How may crimes were commited in United States using Nuclear Weapons ? Is there a reason why i can't have one ?
Only criminals will have nuclear weapons this way !!!!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by fd ski
How may crimes were commited in United States using Nuclear Weapons ? Is there a reason why i can't have one ?
Only criminals will have nuclear weapons this way !!!!
:rolleyes:
Wow, a rolleyes. That must mean you made a good point.
In the US it is not customary to pass a law restricting the rights of citizens unless there is some public benefit. Is an unwieldy .50 really more useful to a criminal than a .308 hunting rifle? Or than a shotgun? Obviously not, as criminals have not used the .50 to commit crimes. This law just lets Arnold position himself as a moderate, the people of California are no safer because of it.
ra
-
fifty caliber ammo was allready illegal to import or sell in the country.. the democrat controled state of California and the finestein boxer witch's have a real anti gun agenda. Arnold needs to give some concession to em or he will get nothing back... he probly feels that since the ammo was banned allready and it affects so few gun owners... And.. I don't think arnie really knows much about guns in any case.
I dissagree with his stance even tho I am not at this time interested in the fifties but..
fd... you flaming socialist... how many people own nukes? lots of people own rfity calibers and they are completely problem free. why are you against fifty caliber weapons? what is the reason?
see how this incrementalism works? demonize one type of gun then go after the next and then the next until the country gets used to the idea that the gun is the problem...
lazs
-
Is it only rifles that are banned? What about this baby?
(http://www.swfirearms.vista.com/userimages/163500_large.jpg)
-
the reasoning that finestein and company used to try to get the ban passed for years now is.... that the rifle could kill from miles away and penetrate the armor of armored limos.
in other words... the government... the ruling class feared em as a threat to them... not to ordinary citizens... unless you consider citizens who travel in armored limos "ordinary" of course.
the ruling class fears these weapons. I don't know how the case was presented to Arnie but my guess is that he wanted some co operation from the democrat controled government.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
in other words... the government... the ruling class feared em as a threat to them... not to ordinary citizens... unless you consider citizens who travel in armored limos "ordinary" of course.
the ruling class fears these weapons.
lazs
Lazs, if you vote for President Bush this fall, doesn't that make you a supporter of the ruling class?
-
yes... it probly does but... the alternative is to vote for a quicker slide into socialism. I will admit to voting against kerrie and the socialist womanly democratic party more than actually voting for Bush.
I believe that is how most Americans really see it and that is why the election will go the way it will.
lazs
-
So no more WW2 movies will be made in California?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Is it only rifles that are banned? What about this baby?
(http://www.swfirearms.vista.com/userimages/163500_large.jpg)
I think you're ok for now.
I doubt that cannon is chambered for the .50-BMG.
-
The BMG? No, of course not... but if it was... oh baby what a pop that would make, eh?
Youd hit yourself in the face with the pistol after you pulled the trigger.
-
Don't know if you've ever seen one of the S&W 500's but they are big enough so that there's no need to shoot anyone with it, just reach out and tap 'em. ;)
-
This is just wrong. A single shot rifle banned. And to think a 300 Win Mag or 300 Remington Ultra Mag are more accurate and deadly at extreme ranges than the .50 Cal. The Anti-Gun groups are just nibbling away caliber by caliber.
We need to get these laws in court and have them struck down as unconstitutional.
Terror
-
Originally posted by Blooz
Unconstitutional.
I wish someone would challenge Californias disregard for Federal law.
You can ban the import, sale, transportation, manufacture and ammunition but you can't ban ownership of a firearm.
California gun owners. Stand up!
Your state law cannot violate Federal law!
States are allowed to make any law they want unless it
is in conflict with federal law. Your above statement lacks merit because there IS no federal law that allows assault weapons... just a law that expired DISallowing it.
No federal law= no conflict= constitutional
-
That's the S&W 500. Not quite as powerful as the BMG.
-
Originally posted by Ohio330
States are allowed to make any law they want unless it
is in conflict with federal law. Your above statement lacks merit because there IS no federal law that allows assault weapons... just a law that expired DISallowing it.
No federal law= no conflict= constitutional
Federal Law can conflict with the Constitution just the same as a State Law. States are allowed to make laws as long as they do not conflict with Federal Law OR the US Constitution.
The Second Amendment says:
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.
This does not say "Arms=small caliber rifles" nor does it say "arms != assault rifles". I would say any state law that says you cannot own a firearm (even of a specific type) is definitely in conflict with the US Constitution.
It also says "the right of the people". This means all law-abiding citizens, not just law enforcement or military people.
I think the only way for the government(State or Federal) to "Constitutionally" ban firearms from law-abiding citizens would be to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, the Second Amendment is pretty clear. You cannot infringe the RIGHT of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.
Terror
-
Originally posted by Terror
Federal Law can conflict with the Constitution just the same as a State Law. States are allowed to make laws as long as they do not conflict with Federal Law OR the US Constitution.
The Second Amendment says:
This does not say "Arms=small caliber rifles" nor does it say "arms != assault rifles". I would say any state law that says you cannot own a firearm (even of a specific type) is definitely in conflict with the US Constitution.
It also says "the right of the people". This means all law-abiding citizens, not just law enforcement or military people.
I think the only way for the government(State or Federal) to "Constitutionally" ban firearms from law-abiding citizens would be to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, the Second Amendment is pretty clear. You cannot infringe the RIGHT of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.
Terror
I see what your saying and agree with you. But unless the Feds
take issue with it, nothing will happen.
Secondly, one can argue by saying "here's your snub-nosed .38.. your all set"
Thirdly, I gather that your opinion is that the feds violated the constitution banning the assault weapons was unconstitutional.
No court took issue with that one (that I'm aware of anyways),
or if they did, it's obvious it wasn't found to be unconstitutional.
Btw, I'm pro-gun myself, so don't get me wrong. I personally feal that if ya wanna own a TANK you should have the right to do so. Im glad my state recently alllowed CCW. The only thing this adds to the pool is HONEST and LAW abiding people having guns..not more criminals (they had em anyways)
-
Originally posted by ra
Yup, Arnold is all about Arnold.
How many crimes have been committed with .50s in California?
Who would be stupid enough to want to carry the damned thing around? On average a 50 cal bolt gun weighs in at around 35 pounds. And those are the light ones.
Arnold should have stuck to movie making and eating steroids. Hes a moron in every other aspect.
Maybe cali will break off once and for all from the main land.
-
Originally posted by Terror
This is just wrong. A single shot rifle banned. And to think a 300 Win Mag or 300 Remington Ultra Mag are more accurate and deadly at extreme ranges than the .50 Cal. The Anti-Gun groups are just nibbling away caliber by caliber.
We need to get these laws in court and have them struck down as unconstitutional.
Terror
I dont want to get off topic here but this is not true.
The 50BMG bullet doesnt even begin stabalize until around 600 yards. At which point it becomes a lazer with todays elite ammo loads. In a bolt gun, the 50 cal is a big, bad accurate monster.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
are dems supposed to like Arnold now because he signed a bill, or are republicans supposed to hate him now?
heh...seems that even the dems on this board thing it was a pretty foolish and wastefull thing...
-
especially if a republican signed it.
-
Well, we're always gonna have laws protecting us. Slippery slope and all, gotta draw the line somewhere. I don't want my neighbor parking a howitzer in his front yard. Just gotta remain vigilant in keeping that line defining our right to firearms in a place that makes sense.
-
I don't want my neighbor parking a howitzer in his front yard.
why not? it cant possibly be used for anything except shelling the neighboring towns sports arena when your team loses to em.
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
I dont want to get off topic here but this is not true.
The 50BMG bullet doesnt even begin stabalize until around 600 yards. At which point it becomes a lazer with todays elite ammo loads. In a bolt gun, the 50 cal is a big, bad accurate monster.
The problem is the .50 cal BMG drops in speed very quickly after about 1800m. Whereas the 30cal bullets of the 300WM and the 300RUM carry their speed farther down range. Has something to do with CoEfficient of Drag. (Saw the math somewhere on the net, just can't find it now.) Most of the 2000+ meter shots have been accomplished with 300WM and 300RUM cartridges.
Now don't get me wrong, the 50cal BMG is still accurate and deadly at those ranges, just not quite as much as the other two cartridges. I'm just saying that if they can ban the 50cal, then these other calibers will be next on this list.
Terror
PS. After reading back, this is definitely a thread Hi-Jack. Sorry. I was just trying to make the point that this is a step in the [wrong] direction of making all kinds of weapons illegal based on caliber alone.
-
The first time it was voted on there were not enough votes. Something like 35 to 34. The Dems called for a recount. After casting their votes several of them got up and walked over to absent lawmakers seats and cast "ghost votes". No one complained even though it is against California law to do so.
I think the intent of the 2A in the constitution based on the Federalist Papers is to give "We The People" of the United States a mechanism to counter activities like this. If they can cast "ghost votes" to ban one specific firearm. They can cast "ghost votes" to confiscate all firearms in California.
To think that a body of people will at some point regulate themselves after succeeding with one criminal action in the presence of 100 or so witnesses is disingenuous and naive. Human nature is to run with it at the expence of those they govern adfinitum.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a timeless monument to the bad side of human nature. It provides strategic curbs to what humans then, now, and 1000 years from now will do to "We the People" if no one stands in their way. Whats sad is it costs the life of the first resolute citizen to enact the protections of the constitution before the cowards quit jeering and take it for real.
-
If what you say is true bustr then those Kalifornia reps should be impeached. Unless of course it has become a completely lawless state.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Well, we're always gonna have laws protecting us. Slippery slope and all, gotta draw the line somewhere. I don't want my neighbor parking a howitzer in his front yard. Just gotta remain vigilant in keeping that line defining our right to firearms in a place that makes sense.
My opinion on this, just as long as he is not infringing on your rights, why shouldn't he have a Howitzer? How would owning a Howitzer make it any more unsafe for you? Now, if he fires it in an unsafe or irresposible manner, he should be 100% responsible for his actions. But saying it's illegal because he MIGHT be unsafe or irresponsible with it is wrong.
Terror
-
Where do you draw the line then? Nuclear?
-
bustr,
Where is any info on this? I've read nothing about this. You think the NRA would jump all over information like that.
Terror
-
Originally posted by gofaster
So no more WW2 movies will be made in California?
No, prop houses get special permits from the state. They get the most hassle from the feds when they want to use full-autos.
-
AKIron,
No it is a custom\common practice. It is a common problem in a number of states. The catch-22 for law makers is, now that I have sat here and witnessed it once or twice, if I blow the whistel, I am also guilty of abetting it by not blowing the whistle the very first time. In California the ATG is a Dem, Bill Lockyer. He also would like to ban all firearms in California. The charges would have to be brought to him in the first place.
This is the real reason for the 2A in the constitution. No one can address greivences to the state government about unconstitutional gun laws. The State Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit Court agree with the California Dems on gun control and its constitutionality. Lockyer tells people to "bite me".
-
Originally posted by bustr
The first time it was voted on there were not enough votes. Something like 35 to 34. The Dems called for a recount. After casting their votes several of them got up and walked over to absent lawmakers seats and cast "ghost votes". No one complained even though it is against California law to do so.
I'd be interested in seeing a source for this. Normally, the legislature answers only to the legislature on how it conducts its affairs.
-
draw the line? I don't draw the line except for explosives that may endager firefighters, neighbors or rescue workers... this includes chemical weapons. I have no problem with city and local ordinances that limit firing of guns in city limits without just cause or proper facility.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Where do you draw the line then? Nuclear?
The laws should be there to protect the individual rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. I seen no reason restrict weapons unless the responsible use or storage of that weapon infringes on another individuals rights. High Explosives, Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be used or stored without extreme precaution to insure the safety of the general population. Where responsible use/storage of general weapons incur no more danger to the general population.
Oh BTW, Howitzer (or any other cannon or fully automatic weapon manufactured before 1986) ownership is currently Federally legal following licensing regulation through the ATF. So your neighbor COULD pull out that Howitzer and park it in his front yard tomorrow.
I know this is niave, too many "bad apples" in our society. I can live with background checks for all dealer weapon purchases. I can live with licensing for fully automatic small arms and cannons. (As long as cost is not prohibitive as it currently is for licensing.) But I do not agree with general banning of weapons to the general law-abiding populace. I also do not agree with a general "registry of gun owners". I should be able to own firearms without anyone keeping track of what/when/where firearms I own.
Terror
-
well put terror.
lazs
-
"I seen no reason restrict weapons unless the responsible use or storage of that weapon infringes on another individuals rights. "
Which is exactly why I support the banning of anything bigger than rifle caliber.
My neighbor does not need a howitzer or a 50 cal rifle to defend his home, nor to hunt nor hand grenades for any other reason than to have it as a 'toy'.
If my neighbor parked a howitzer in his yard I would feel quite threatened by someone who I dont know showing that he owns something that can blow my house up in one shot, that I dont know if he keeps the ammo for that thing on his garage, how responsible he is in keeping said ammo there (his house blows and mine too), or how responsible his little kids are (kids shoot themselves with regular 9mm imagine what would happen if Jr found a grenade in the closet and pulled the pin..with the howitzer ammo being in the closet too, etc etc).
There is no way whatsoever to guarantee someone will be 'responsible' with such firepower. A gun, a rifle, even a machine gun if you will is something that even an irresponsible person cannot cause massive damage and loss of life. Someone with a mortar, a howitzer, a pack of grenades, a 50 cal rifle (it can pierce his house's walls, my house's walls and the walls of the 2 houses next to mine), etc etc can.
-
"There is no way whatsoever to guarantee someone will be 'responsible' "
Will you feel any better if your family is killed by a drunk driver?
Guess which is more likely.
What do you drive?
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by OIO
Which is exactly why I support the banning of anything bigger than rifle caliber.
My neighbor does not need a howitzer or a 50 cal rifle to defend his home, nor to hunt nor hand grenades for any other reason than to have it as a 'toy'.
If my neighbor parked a howitzer in his yard I would feel quite threatened by someone who I dont know showing that he owns something that can blow my house up in one shot, that I dont know if he keeps the ammo for that thing on his garage, how responsible he is in keeping said ammo there (his house blows and mine too), or how responsible his little kids are (kids shoot themselves with regular 9mm imagine what would happen if Jr found a grenade in the closet and pulled the pin..with the howitzer ammo being in the closet too, etc etc).
There is no way whatsoever to guarantee someone will be 'responsible' with such firepower. A gun, a rifle, even a machine gun if you will is something that even an irresponsible person cannot cause massive damage and loss of life. Someone with a mortar, a howitzer, a pack of grenades, a 50 cal rifle (it can pierce his house's walls, my house's walls and the walls of the 2 houses next to mine), etc etc can.
and thats why you just don't get it.
it's about not infringing on his right to own and use his weapons as long as his ownership doesn't present a safety hazzard for the general population.
it's not about what weapons you think "he needs to own".
btw- very well said terror.
-
OIO how do you go from rifle caliber to howitzer?
-
Lines are drawn and will continue to be drawn and redrawn. The average citizen cannot own a fully automatic rifle. Why not?
Let's get technical about the 2nd Amendment, it's says right to bear arms, not rifles or pistols. Nukes are arms and the US has them in it's military arsenal, why can't a private citizen?
-
oio... owning a fifty does not mean that the person would use it to shoot in the house. that would be neglignent... but... a thirty ougtht six hunting rifle or any gun you think is "ok" could overpenetrate too. A car going down the street could veer into your bedroom and kill you... happens more than you think.
iron... explosives have the ability to destroy without control of the owner. they also can't normally be used in a selective manner. They shells for a howitzer endager people in an explosive manner. Most contain more black powder than is allowed to be stored by an individual.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Lines are drawn and will continue to be drawn and redrawn. The average citizen cannot own a fully automatic rifle. Why not?
Let's get technical about the 2nd Amendment, it's says right to bear arms, not rifles or pistols. Nukes are arms and the US has them in it's military arsenal, why can't a private citizen?
Ah, but the average law-abiding citizen can currently be licensed to own/use a fully automatic rifle. It's just very cost prohibitive.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nukes, Chemical, Biological, High-Explosives, should be controlled due to the instability and nature of their destructiveness. Even exceptionally trained personnel have difficulty handling and using weapons of this type.
A Howitzer and its ammunition can be handled safely and responsibly by individuals with very little training. And under the current licensing, ammunition must be stored in special magazines that are specially built to withstand emergencies. This is licensing I am ok with. (Exept for the exhorbitant (sp?) pricing.) Though the Howitzer itself can be stored in any manner that the individual deems appropriate. (except in the few states that have "storage" laws.)
The problem I have is with laws that ban a firearm because it "might" be used irresponsibly (Like the .50cal BMG). The laws should punish and restrict individuals that have shown they cannot handle weapons responsibly.
Terror
-
terror said it better than I did.
hunting rifles will overpenetrate. hunters who have nothing else will use the hunting rifle to protect themselves in an emmergency... we all acept this risk..
if, said hunting rifle round overpenetrates and kills an innocent ... at that time, it will be up to the shooter to prove that he was not acting negligently... a fifty is no different except.... it is so unweildy that it is unlikely in the extreme that it would be useful for self defense.
The reasons given for the ban were that the fifty penetrated armor. armor plated limos... It is not citizens that the government is trying to protect here.
lazs
-
You guys win, guess living in Kalifornia has turned Arnold into a girly-man, get out while ya can lazs. ;)
-
You're a nut if you think the 2nd Amendment is there to give you the capability to commit terrorism against the government.
-
Originally posted by Blooz
Unconstitutional.
I wish someone would challenge Californias disregard for Federal law.
You can ban the import, sale, transportation, manufacture and ammunition but you can't ban ownership of a firearm.
California gun owners. Stand up!
Your state law cannot violate Federal law!
California seems not to want to be part of the Union....let em go.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
California seems not to want to be part of the Union....let em go.
I wish, then we could get your little state off our welfare rolls.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
You're a nut if you think the 2nd Amendment is there to give you the capability to commit terrorism against the government.
call it what you will, thats exactly what it's there for.
it was written by a bunch of guys who were fed up with their gov't and use guns to take the power away and set up a system that they found more fitting. they put the amendment in to make sure that the people always had the power to stand up if the gov't goes to far out of control.
I don't understand how someone can read their history books, look at the situation they were in when it was written, and not realize that this is exactly what they were talking about.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
You're a nut if you think the 2nd Amendment is there to give you the capability to commit terrorism against the government.
The second amendment is there to insure that the government cannot say a law-abiding citizen cannot own "arms". Just because a weapon can be used for terrorism, does not mean it should be restricted from a civilian. Thats what a nopen free society is about. Innocent until proven guilty. Anything can be used to commit "terrorism" not just certain weapons or calibers.
Terror
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
You're a nut if you think the 2nd Amendment is there to give you the capability to commit terrorism against the government.
MZ, who is the government and who are we? If we are "We the People" as defined in the declaration and constitution than it is not terrorism. The 2A is to ensure we can curb human nature. If you allow persons to abuse, rob, and cheat you under the guise of government, they will claim it the norm and that you agree they are in the right since they are the government. Your life and what happens during it is your responsibility, not the governments. Once Power is achived by a human, by 5000 years of recorded history, most humans abuse their fellow humans with it. The constitution shrewedly addresses the core human short comings in relation to Power over your fellow man.
Many humans will only stop abusing their fellows when their life is 100% at risk. The 2A provides this deterrent for the most egregious violators of the Oath of Office. Those are historicly the ones who subvert and overthrow the lawfull existing governemnt to their own ends.
You guys should really read Blackstone, Locke, and the Federalist Papers. Ceasers comentairies, Macioveli and Lenin. We act no differently today than humans in the Last 5000 years. Power is Power. In the west we are more usefull as we are working 1/3 of the year for the government. That makes it harder to convice anyone that their government does not beleive in "We the People".
-
mz... just curious... what do you think the 2nd is there for? Hunting maybe?
do you crawl around on your belly with a double barrel shotgun to hunt deer like kerrie?
lazs
-
Originally posted by bustr
You guys should really read Blackstone, Locke, and the Federalist Papers. Ceasers comentairies, Macioveli and Lenin.
You can add Hobbes, Socrates, Mill, Marx, Paine, and all the rest. I am familiar with social and political philosophy.
While there are many utopian visions of the masses rising up and taking back whatever, you can throw that out the window in our current situation. Unless this revolution has the support of the military, you're going to get squashed like a Branch Dividian.
I posit that the 2nd Amendment is there for the situations when the government can't protect you - such as being confronted by a criminal, being in a riot, or out in the wild.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
do you crawl around on your belly with a double barrel shotgun to hunt deer like kerrie?
Last time I went 'hunting' was from the back of a pick up truck with a Marlin .22, looking for squirrels.
-
mz... if the government has the backing of all the army (which are, after all... citizens) then probly a revolt against that government should fail. A tyrannical government in the U.S. would not have the backing of the entire military.
other than that... you have interpreted the 2nd correctly.
lazs
-
MZ,
Should it ever come to us versus the gov't, rest assured that more than half of the military would be on the people's side. Not sure if you have served or not, but in the oath it says ".... to defend our country from all enemies foreign and domestic...", and at least while I was in, that one little blurb got more discussion than any other. 90% of the people I hung around with would be AWOL if it ever came to our Gov't trying to take away our guns. Since about 50% of the military is made up of southern individuals, I doubt this has changed.
A marlin .22 and squirrels............now that brings back some memories!!