Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: storch on November 15, 2006, 08:46:27 AM
-
I was looking through my latest issue of American Rifleman and the advertisement for Barrett caught my eye with this little gem. they have an octagonal shape with the following written upon it, "the california legislature has banned the .50 BMG from the good citizens of the state of california violating their rights and the constitution of our republic. therefore Barrett will not sell to or service any california government agencies.
I'm going to email them my support for this position. it is a pity other weapons manufacturers don't do the same.
-
yep... barret used to donate to some kalifornia police agencies... this is real guts in my opinion... the cops I know support them in their ideals.
lazs
-
Ronnie Barrett is a friend and customer of mine, and has been for over 15 years. He was a deputy sherriff at one time, and in fact that was what he was doing when the design for the rifle was drawn on a napkin at a local steak house. He's just an average everyday guy who made it good. He strongly believes in the country, and in what he says and does. He's a real stand up guy.
-
If you see him... tell him this kalifornia gun owner supports him.
lazs
-
Had this swell referendum on the Cook County ballot:
"For the health and safety of children and the entire community, shall the State of Illinois enact a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, sale, delivery and possession of military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles?"
It passed by about 90 percent, which is not surprising given the county demographics and the fact that the mainstream media champions the AWB cause and refuses to conduct even basic journalism as to the "impact" these weapons have. In Chicago, for example, according to CPD reports the generic "Rifle" category accounts for about 1-2 percent of all homicides -- on par with baseball bats. I don't believe the .50 cal rifles have ever been used criminally. The stalled AWB legislation is now going to roll forward armed with this clear mandate :mad: Hopefully only at the county level, though.
Of course, the Tribune ran pro AWB editorial last year that is virtually a cut and paste from the Brady Campaign Web site that uses discredited (from the actual FBI source -- these reports do not indicate trends, shouldn't be used to..., etc.) data involving "crime traces" and phrases like "... while we can't actually tell if the use of these weapons has increased since the Federal ban ended, we still support ... (accurate paraphrase of the line)" WTF! Journalism 101, that research and reporting thing -- but, they don't WANT to let the facts get in the way of a safe, do nothing, solve nothing crusade that will only impact responsible, legal gun owners.
At the state level, although Soon-to-be-indicted Democrat and strong anti 2nd Amendment supporter Blagovitch won, more people voted in total for the two pro 2nd Amendment candidates. And Dick Durbin's hand-picked political tool Tammy Duckworth, running on a strong AWB platform, lost. In one funny add, four terrified soccer moms shrilled how they were going to go Dem this election because the mean Republican man was "just too extreme."
Federally, I think the election was an overall win for the 2nd Amendment. The Dems (nationally) have finally apparently realized that this issue hurts more than helps, and many of the new Dems are pro 2nd. Pelosi picking Murthra is also a very positive sign. These new Dems know that a flop flop will bite them 4 years down the road.
Likely worse case scenario for me and my "evil" M-1 carbine -- I just have to move out of Cook County but can stay in the sate close to family and employment.
Charon
-
None of these idiots has even LOOKED at ANY 50 BMG caliber rifle before deciding they need to be outlawed.
A. They all weigh at least 15 pounds or more.
B. Most are single shot.
C. The cheapest commonly available model is $1500 at least.
D. They almost all have a 26" or longer barrel.
E. It costs about $5 for one round of ammunition.
F. About one in one thousand people could shoot it with any accuracy.
G. About 90% of what you can do with a 50 BMG rifle can be done with
a $450 rifle available at most any gun store, gun show, or major sporting goods store, or even Wal Mart.
Hell, my damned Model 70 300 Winchester Magnum will shoot better than I can at 1000 yards, penetrate most any body armor, and even defeat some of the armor on armored limos, as well as a lot of bullet resistant glass. And it isn't even a big or powerful rifle. I could easily pick up something more powerful.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you see him... tell him this kalifornia gun owner supports him.
lazs
Ditto
-
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
-
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 :aok
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
-
New slogan "Barrett - The preferred weapon of choice by gangbangers."
Piss on Cook County, and California "legislature".
-
Just found out they already sneaked through the enhanced Cook County ban -- that was fast. Now I have to see if it applies to me or not, given that I live in a village that already has some firearm ordinances on the books (and may be exempt from county law). If not, then I'll be out of the county (if not the state) by next year.
We have a HQ in Fort Atkinson Wisc. -- I could move there and be in the same office as the managing editor I supervise which would be helpful, but finding other employment should the need or desire arise would be a lot harder. My wife already has a job that involves locations in IL and Wisc so that wouldn't be a huge deal. But, that would move my 8-month-old son a lot farther away from the grandparents. Given I got a later start on the childern thing than most I have a hard time cutting that realtionship shorter than it is going to be already.
I have literally gone from loving Chicago and Illinois to hating both with a flaming passion. It's an unamerican place to live. I refuse, as best I can, to give up Constitutional rights that others in this country freely enjoy for some shiftless, smary political ****s do nothing feel good legislation.
Charon
-
Run Charon.
It's not like you could fight them or something.
-
Amendment II
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.
Yall guys in Calli need to take a good Lawyer and go kick some arsh. I live in Texas we can have this rifle for now? But if you look above it says nowere the Cal. of the wepon. All it says is the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!! I takes someone to stand up. And fight!!!
If I was from there I would do it but Im From Texas so I cant help ya BUT I do say go get him.
By the BY you dont have to pay the lawyer up front just if {you win}:aok :O :aok
-
What a dude.
-
Just trying to help out. Not trying to be a maroon there.
-
Well Lasersailor, that's easy to say when you don't live somewhere where there is a need to "fight them." Life must be good from the sidelines -- I can only imagine. I have been fighting "them" for quite some time now. At least a dozen letters to the editor, numerous calls to state and federal legislators, donations to the almost useless ISRA, membership in the NRA, voting for the best 2nd Amendment choices on the ballot...
Without any factual coverage in the major media there's not much you can do in Cook County. Only one side is allowed to present information to the people. Factual inaccuracies are a regular part of the coverage, with no challenge. basic questions like "how many murders are actually committed by "assault weapons" go completely unasked. Letters to the editor that point this out go unpublished. The referendum I posted passed by 86 percent -- just how, exactly, should I fight that without a fair treatment from the mass media? IT"S FOR THE SAFETY OF THE ****ING CHILDERN AFTER ALL... And, Daley is serious. He tried to put the entire firearm industry out of business with his sue the gun manufacturers push a few years back. So, Cook County is lost short of seeing Daley indicted for his patronage practices (which is a real hope). Moving out of Cook County is a no brainer when the time is ripe. It's hopeless, and when you consider all of the tax dollars helping pay for Chicago's waste and graft then it's even more of a no brainer.
At the state level... Things are not quite as bad though having Gov. Hoowdy Doody in office makes it much harder. And, Daley has been using his influence manpower to influence elections outside of Chicago and Cook county to get his kind of Democrats in power. A state-wide AWB is a tougher nut and as I have at numerous times in the past, I will actively work to resist this. Should the Ban pass, then IL is not a state that represents my view of America and if I can, I'll leave. That simple.
Charon
-
charon... sadly, that is about all we can do is move to a state that is less restrictive of our freedoms. I will move out of kalifornia in a few years.
The ideal solution to the rural/city red/blue split is to have some states suceed from the union. Those states could attract people based on their government or.... lack thereof.
It is just too complex... it is impossible for the loafer wearing sardine people of the blue areas to make laws that are palatable for those of the red areas.
lazs
-
No Charon, he doesn't mean fight them thru the system. He wants you to start teh revolution.
Tell ya what laser, martyr yourself to the cause and we'll be right behind you. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The ideal solution to the rural/city red/blue split is to have some states suceed from the union. Those states could attract people based on their government or.... lack thereof.
It is just too complex... it is impossible for the loafer wearing sardine people of the blue areas to make laws that are palatable for those of the red areas.
lazs
The problem is that the liberals own the coasts and therefore the ports. A landlocked Conservative States of America would still be at the mercy of the United Republic of Socialist States . There is no way to achieve your vision without bloodshed...
(tongue in cheek)
-
Well Lasersailor, that's easy to say when you don't live somewhere where there is a need to "fight them." Life must be good from the sidelines -- I can only imagine. I have been fighting "them" for quite some time now. At least a dozen letters to the editor, numerous calls to state and federal legislators, donations to the almost useless ISRA, membership in the NRA, voting for the best 2nd Amendment choices on the ballot...
While I do agree, I believe that you are forgetting what "Fight" actually means.
-
Told ya!
-
While I do agree, I believe that you are forgetting what "Fight" actually means.
LOL. That time has not yet arrived by a long shot... and when It does I may just run and hide somewhere :) Crazy thoughts do cross your mind from time to time though, when crap like this assaults your rights. I'll still put my money on the Supreme Court first, which may take up the cause one of these days if the chicken**** NRA ever decides to force the issue through a lawsuit. I feel that the issue of the 2nd being a individual vs. collective right is solid (with a lot of academic support to back that up), but then you never know how it will play out until the final decision is rendered. I guess that's why the NRA does this incremental half-assed stuff (along with a suspicion that they like having the game to play generating a "higher" purpose for their existance beyond just a marksmanship and firearm education club).
Charon
-
I'm thinking we could own some southern ports and some north west ones.
lazs
-
I'll still put my money on the Supreme Court first, which may take up the cause one of these days if the chicken**** NRA ever decides to force the issue through a lawsuit.
The Supreme Court? The supreme court gets to pick and choose the cases they hear. In the past they turned down 2nd ammendment cases, why do you think it would be different now?
Tell ya what laser, martyr yourself to the cause and we'll be right behind you.
I'm just waiting for them to encroach on me.
-
Of course. ;)
-
If I act first, then I am the aggressor. I can't win any wars if I'm the person who started the fight.
-
:rofl
-
The Supreme Court? The supreme court gets to pick and choose the cases they hear. In the past they turned down 2nd ammendment cases, why do you think it would be different now?
The makeup has changed somewhat in recent years -- one thing I actually appreciate about the Bush administration (a relatively new appreciation, actually). The desire to avoid a ruling internally must be somewhat changed as well. Also, there has lacked an outside push or pressure to encourage a resolution. Only time will tell. I still feel that if push comes to shove, with today's court, the individual right position will win. I also think historical context fully supports this.
Charon
-
The problem with the "fight," is that eventually I fear my fellow citizens will dilute most of the bill of rights from the ground up (people both right and left, for different reasons but the same crappy result). And the question then becomes, who do you take up arms against? And, who will be standing beside you if revolution day coincides with the season premier of the latest American Idol. Chirp... Chirp...
Charon
-
Did someone say SECESSION was the key.....
WELL BY GOD THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!!!!!!
All you gun nuts and die hard Americans need to move somewhere south of the Mason Dixon line but don't go to Florida or Georgia. Those states are turning yankee faster than anywhere else.
-
no serious constituional scholar does not believe that the second is an individual right.
we will get no smaller government from the politicians but... the republicans are our best bet to slow socialism and, as charon has come to realize.... do the important work of getting the job done through the courts.
no politician can cut taxes and restore states and human rights.. it is all up to the courts now.
think of that when you allow a pelosie or a boxer or finestien into a postition to appoint judges.
Bush sucked but... he has done more for us than most presidents lately... he stopped the tide of liberal judges and rulings and gave us a chance on the supreme court to get justice and our human rights back.
I'd say he did as much as we could expect. No one even dared to bring up more gun restrictions to him to sign.... contrast that with klintons reign.
lazs
-
Yall guys in Calli need to take a good Lawyer and go kick some arsh. I live in Texas we can have this rifle for now? But if you look above it says nowere the Cal. of the wepon. All it says is the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!
That's an issue the NRA doesn't really want raised.
How do you define "arms"? Machine guns aren't very different to semi auto rifles, and so should certainly come under the definition of "arms". The problem is, hand held anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles probably meet the original definition as well.
If you ever get a court ruling that the constitution says the right to bear stinger missiles shall not be infringed, expect a constitutional amendment straight away.
The situation is lose-lose for the NRA. Even if they win, "arms" will include things that the vast majority of the population won't want held by private citizens, and the result will likely be even tighter gun laws than now. Whilst society in the 18th (and 19th) century could accept people having the best weapons available, 20th century society cannot, because the lethality of weapons has increased so much. (for example, it's hard to imagine someone on a killing spree with the weapons available when the constitution was written, because they took so long to reload. And the idea of a single shot killing 300+ (as a stinger could) was unthinkable).
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
That's an issue the NRA doesn't really want raised.
How do you define "arms"? Machine guns aren't very different to semi auto rifles, and so should certainly come under the definition of "arms". The problem is, hand held anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles probably meet the original definition as well.
If you ever get a court ruling that the constitution says the right to bear stinger missiles shall not be infringed, expect a constitutional amendment straight away.
The situation is lose-lose for the NRA. Even if they win, "arms" will include things that the vast majority of the population won't want held by private citizens, and the result will likely be even tighter gun laws than now. Whilst society in the 18th (and 19th) century could accept people having the best weapons available, 20th century society cannot, because the lethality of weapons has increased so much. (for example, it's hard to imagine someone on a killing spree with the weapons available when the constitution was written, because they took so long to reload. And the idea of a single shot killing 300+ (as a stinger could) was unthinkable).
if you consider the time when the amendment was penned you will note that the military and the citizenry were basically equally armed. the clear intent of the founders was to provide the average citizen with the ability to suppress a tyrannical govennment in the event that government wanted to usurp the rights of the people. the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. while I think your assessment is correct and that is an untenable position that the NRA would surely not want to partake of, I believe that it is still the spirit of the amendment. my position is that it would include privately owned nimitz class carriers as well. :D
-
*whistles "Anchors Away"*
:t
-
Storch, I know that the idea was the citizenry should be as well armed as the military. However, I'd say that was practical in the 18th century, and not practical now.
Would anyone seriously want private citizens to be able to own nuclear weapons?
If you look at weapons as a spectrum from knife -------- nuke, everyone is going to draw their line somewhere.
Much simpler in the 18th century, when the spectrum was something like knife ------------- cannon. A lone nutter (or even group of nutters) can't do that much damage with a cannon. A lone nutter can do an immense amount of damage with a nuke.
-
indeed, single up all lines.
-
Nashwan, that line has pretty much been drawn for the reasons you mention. Explosive weapons and projectiles are verboten and automatic weapons are a very expensive, meticulous and time-consuming affair for the prospective private owner. Personally speaking, I'm comfortable with the line where it is.
Bear in mind that we're only talking about legal ownership here. Nutters have been known to circumvent the law from time to time when it becomes inconvenient to their plans.
-
The line has been drawn, but the problem is the constitutional aspect hasn't been addressed. The line has basically been drawing by applying some common sense, and "interpreting" the constitution.
That's why the NRA aren't interested in taking this to court. A strict interpretation of the constitution throws out the "common sense" restrictions placed on the most dangerous weapons. That leaves the sort of situation only the most extreme want, and will lead to a new constitutional amendment, that will probably draw the line even more tightly than the current common sense compromises.
-
Would anyone seriously want private citizens to be able to own nuclear weapons?
As VOR points out, the difference between arms and ordinance was established from the start. As the actual facts point out, semi automatic rifles are too expensive and difficult to conceal making them particularly unattractive in criminal activity. Statistics place their use at about 1-2 percent.
The reason semi automatic rifles are the focus of regulatory attacks here is that they are a less represented segment of firearm ownership compared to other weapons, making them easier to attack without as much unified defense in the firearm community.
For the full firearm banners -- the Brady crowd -- they represent a doable ban that can be accomplished today while working towards long-term goals.
For politicians, they can claim to do "something about crime" without actually dealing with the significant challenges that lead to violent inner city crime. Feel good, do nothing legislation even if a ban actually worked. 1-2 percent of the problem at best. None have the guts to attack the failed war on drugs, or segregation, or a lack of inner city economic development or failed education or -- most importantly for a politician -- failed responsibility among parents and the actual criminals. Blame the symptom, not the problem -- its safer.
The mainstream media in urban areas lacks diversity of background and opinion in the newsroom, regardless of their skin color. Urban and suburban middle to upper middle class from cradle to grave, Ivy league or the equivalent college experience, no life experience otherwise, typically little exposure to responsible firearm ownership, generally liberal views socially that include the 2nd Amendment (many of which I support, but not out of emotional bias and obviously not where the 2nd is concerned). Their coverage reflects this, though it's hard to tell the difference between basic ignorance and actual bias. It's likely a combo of both. The net result is a lack of even coverage.
Anti-2nd Amendment types are free to publicly claim that these rifles are machine guns. This even included a local politician that did a mailing where she implied though her images that a .50 rifle was a M2 .50 machine gun (a belt-fed M2 sitting in a pile of spent casings). The ILL Fraternal Order of Police (a political organization like most) being allowed to state: "police firearm deaths have eclipsed traffic deaths since the federal ban was lifted" while supporting a candidate (Duckworth) without providing any data linking those deaths to actual semi automatic rifles. During the same time crime has increased in general while pursuit tactics have worked to reduce traffic deaths -- no AWB link at all. And, nobody calls them on this. Chicago's "Top Cop" can go on televison and state "you can empty the magazine with one or two pulls of the trigger" and no one calls him on it. If you try, your letters to the editor just don't get published.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Much simpler in the 18th century, when the spectrum was something like knife ------------- cannon. A lone nutter (or even group of nutters) can't do that much damage with a cannon. A lone nutter can do an immense amount of damage with a nuke.
Tell the British that. I believe that the Founding Fathers wanted the people to have the ability, in the event that the new government became as tyrannical as the British government, to have the same options and abilities to overthrow as the colonies. If your argument is that the Constitution is an eighteenth century document that has little relevance today, I suggest that we just throw the whole thing away.
As a good Libertarian my interpretation of the Second Amendment is that the government shall not be allowed to have bigger guns than I.
-
The line has been drawn, but the problem is the constitutional aspect hasn't been addressed. The line has basically been drawing by applying some common sense, and "interpreting" the constitution.
That's why the NRA aren't interested in taking this to court. A strict interpretation of the constitution throws out the "common sense" restrictions placed on the most dangerous weapons. That leaves the sort of situation only the most extreme want, and will lead to a new constitutional amendment, that will probably draw the line even more tightly than the current common sense compromises.
That an interesting idea, and one that is likely IMO correct at a basic level. I don't necessarily agree that the outcome would be a tighter line (or that common sense figures in most of these efforts), but it might be if the debate is biased by the 4th Estate. That is a real issue. Just like the Iraq war was allowed to develop with little oversight and hard reporting by the media.
Charon
-
As a good Libertarian my interpretation of the Second Amendment is that the government shall not be allowed to have bigger guns than I can.
So, does the US give up it's nuclear weapons (at a time when Iran is acquiring them), or should private citizens in the US be allowed to own nuclear weapons?
As VOR points out, the difference between arms and ordinance was established from the start.
I don't think so. Can you name any weapon that was actually banned by the US in the 18th century?
It's only in the 20th century that weapons started to get destructive enough on an individual basis that they had to be controlled for society to survive (I'd say you cannot have society where the citizens can each individually destroy a city)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
So, does the US give up it's nuclear weapons (at a time when Iran is acquiring them), or should private citizens in the US be allowed to own nuclear weapons?
I don't think so. Can you name any weapon that was actually banned by the US in the 18th century?
It's only in the 20th century that weapons started to get destructive enough on an individual basis that they had to be controlled for society to survive (I'd say you cannot have society where the citizens can each individually destroy a city)
Seriously, how many multimillionaires are going to waste there money on nukes? Maybe Bill Gates-I think he has it in him... What many people fail to realize is that a nuclear weapon is useless-unless you have enough of them to blow up the world. If North Korea decided to incinerate Tokyo what would it accomplish besides getting itself turned into a glass parking lot?
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...
-
Originally posted by sluggish
Seriously, how many multimillionaires are going to waste there money on nukes?
Only one I can think of.
(http://arbyte.us/blog_archive/2005/11/drevil_million_dollars.jpg)
-
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. For the 2nd to cover Ordnance weapons it would have included that specific reference. Arms, or small arms, include personal type weapons such as rifles and pistols. Today Arms would include machine guns which have some degree of restirction. Ordnance covers anything on the order of a mortar or higher. I would also assume grenades and grenade launchers as well as explosives.
Again, these distinctions are not new. Nor are semi automatic rifles, which lacking the automatic capabilities are not nearly as attractive to criminals when you consider the disadvantages of size and cost.
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
-
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 :aok
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Excellent info Charon. I'll buy it.
-
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
-
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.
-
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