DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on December 17, 2012, 09:18:42 PM
-
(http://www.gandermountain.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?i=GM442164)
http://www.gandermountain.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?i=GM442164 (http://www.gandermountain.com/modperl/product/details.cgi?i=GM442164)
(http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/s7_223076_584_01?rgn=0,0,2000,668&scl=3.8095238095238093&fmt=jpeg&id=07dos6jJB1NKV9uoI7NZGu)
http://www.cabelas.com/semiautomatic-bushmaster-firearms-15-rifles-4.shtml (http://www.cabelas.com/semiautomatic-bushmaster-firearms-15-rifles-4.shtml)
(http://gastatic.com/UserImages/119171/999216404/pop_wm_2412412.jpg)
http://www.gunsamerica.com/999216404/BUSHMASTER_CARBON_15_LTWT_223.htm (http://www.gunsamerica.com/999216404/BUSHMASTER_CARBON_15_LTWT_223.htm)
Not entirely sold out yet , but I expect a hot selling season.
Check the prices. Return.
The more certain it seems that the assault ban is coming back , the hotter and more expensive these are going to be.
-
IIRC, NOT an assault rifle either
-
There is a problem with imprecice language , especially in law.
The government can outlaw wipernerbels and determine after the legislation what is ment by wipernerbels.
The assault ban suffered this problem mostly because none of its authors nor supporters understood what they were doing.
There is hardly any such thing as a non leathal firearm, and the point of a law for making firearms less leathal is hazy.
It is difficult to define what qualitys should be forbidden by people who would rather ban all and rather not understand the features that make a gun more or less leathal.
-
I disagree.....I think they knew exactly what they were doing. Make the law so vague, that Government could use it to ban pretty much anything that "looked" like it could be an assault weapon, even if it wasn't, semiautomatic pistols included
-
Should these be banned? You bet. I can make one of these fully automatic in less then 2 minutes.
BSB
-
You do so ILLEGALLY then
-
It does not look like somethoing particularly designed to shoot deer. I would ban the sucker and make the ammo VERY costly.
-
SIRS.....Besides guns to protect your family as we edge towards more insanity
I highly recommend you consider buying severall of these "Life Straws" over the next few months.
Buy a couple every 6 months. One day they could come in as handy as your gun.
http://www.vestergaard-frandsen.com/lifestraw (http://www.vestergaard-frandsen.com/lifestraw)
They are relatively cheap...$19.95 at BassProShops
they work great...UNICEF and the World Health Organization have been
handing them out in Third World countries like Haiti with success.
Here is a short video of those "evil" "silly" Christians handing out LifeStraws
to Children in Haiti:
Lifestraw Distribution.m4v (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrQ4aG09aPY#ws)
Review Of Life Straw:
LifeStraw Personal Water Filter Review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNIoMTTnKyM#ws)
Bass Pro $19.95
http://www.basspro.com/LifeStraw-Personal-Water-Filter/product/12061210011934/?hvarAID=shopping_googleproductextensions&om_mmc=shopping_googleproductextensions (http://www.basspro.com/LifeStraw-Personal-Water-Filter/product/12061210011934/?hvarAID=shopping_googleproductextensions&om_mmc=shopping_googleproductextensions)
-
It does not look like somethoing particularly designed to shoot deer. I would ban the sucker and make the ammo VERY costly.
See?...it's all about looks. Nevermind that it is NOT an assault rifle, nevermind that it is already illegal to try and convert them. It just looks evil
also kind of funny to slap a tax on the ammo to weapon that you supposedly banned, and no one is supposed to have on planet xo :o
-
thanks for the recommendation, C. I'll give it a looksee 8)
-
"NOT an assault rifle either"
It's the civilian version of the M16, more specifically the CAR. Who are you kidding it's not an assault rifle? Of course it is. And as I said, if you know what to do, you can make it fully automatic in a few minutes.
BSB
-
Ever if the sale of said non-hunting rifles is banned, there would still be many of these things around, so making the ammo expensive would be a way of discouraging its use. A law will not eliminate those guns that are illegal from existence.
The reason this looks dangerous is the clip with what looks like too many bullets for any sane hunter to need.
The fact that is CAN be converted means that the truly dangerous murderer will probably convert it. I say ban the sucker and tax the ammo.
-
"NOT an assault rifle either"
It's the civilian version of the M16, more specifically the CAR. Who are you kidding it's not an assault rifle? Of course it is.
Of course, its not. To be an assault rifle it HAS to be automatic. ergo, it's NOT
And as I said, if you know what to do, you can make it fully automatic in a few minutes.
And THAT would both be and make it ILLEGAL
-
"Of course, its not. To be an assault rifle it HAS to be automatic. ergo, it's NOT"
Complete dogshit. In fact the better trained a soldier is the less often he uses full auto. Further, many of these military assault rifles used a 3 burst "full auto" instead of a true full auto. Even walking point I had my weapon on semi, not full. Believe me, it was still an effective assault weapon. Get an education, gun-nut.
BSB
-
We're not arguing what's a more effective weapon in the hands of a soldier. Sure, 3 bursts are better than full auto, but that's a selection.....as in OPTION, be it semi-automatic vs 3 burst vs full auto, that a soldier has when handling an assault rifle. That's not at issue.
The issue is WHAT makes a rifle an assault rifle, and that would be that it be able to perform full auto If it can't, it's not an assault rifle. Simple as that. If you try to alter a semi-auto into a full auto, THAT'S ILLEGAL, so best not being bragging so much on how you can do that
-
You bet your ass it's an "assault" rifle, full auto capable or not. Tell the loved ones of the children murdered that wasn't an assault rifle, asshole. By the way, what kind of a jerk would put this post up now?
BSB
>>The primary weapon used in the Connecticut school massacre — a semiautomatic assault rifle — has a history in high-profile incidents of gun violence in the U.S.
The .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle also was the weapon of choice in the 2002 Washington-area sniper shootings, which left 10 dead and three wounded in a series of attacks that terrorized the capital region.
The gun, weapon analysts say, has a reputation for easy handling and deadly accuracy.
"There is an allure to this weapon that makes it unusually attractive," said Scott Knight, former chairman of the International Chiefs of Police Firearms Committee. "The way it looks, the way it handles — it screams assault weapon."
Knight, who also is police chief of Chaska, Minn., said the gun's practical application is little more than "a combat weapon."
"Simply put, it can get off a large number of rounds in a matter of seconds," Knight said. "That's what makes it attractive and also so dangerous."
In the school shooting, Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver said all 26 victims were hit multiple times, suffering "devastating" wounds, all apparently traced to the rifle.<<
http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx?q=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/bushmaster-assault-rifle-in-newtown-shootings/1772825/ (http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx?q=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/bushmaster-assault-rifle-in-newtown-shootings/1772825/)
-
Plane: "I will minimise my comments where they might possibly aggravate greif"
-
Plane: "I will minimise my comments where they might possibly aggravate greif"
Apparently I failed on that .
I appologise.
-
"Apparently I failed on that"
Apparently? You mean you didn't just know automatically that for a loved one of one of these children that 3 pictures of a Bushmaster followed by the comment that you expected a hot selling season, check the returns, would be upsetting? Amazing, and you're at the pinnacle?
BSB
-
I appologise.
WTF?
Dude don't be such a wussy.
You've got nothing to apologize about.
Don't try to be a Speaker Boehner "starter kit"
You care way too much about what people think about you.
You'll never please them, or if you do, you've sold your soul to the devil
These people are using a tragedy to try and counter the US Constitution.
They try to use the emotion of the moment to get their way, to push their agenda.
It's the usual "mob rule" tactics...
-
You bet your ass it's an "assault" rifle, full auto capable or not.
Yea, I'd make that bet.....The issue is WHAT makes a rifle an assault rifle, and that would be that it be able to perform full auto If it can't, it's not an assault rifle. Simple as that.
Tell the loved ones of the children murdered that wasn't an assault rifle, asshole.
Sure, I can tell them the truth >>The primary weapon used in the Connecticut school massacre — a semiautomatic rifle<< That doesn't make it an assault rifle, as it's not capable of firing automatic, unless you illegally alter it. If you try to alter a semi-auto into a full auto, THAT'S ILLEGAL, so again, I recommend that you best stop bragging so much on how you can do that
By the way, what kind of a jerk would put this post up now?
You referring to this ongoing posts of yours to try and douse the truth with nothing more than emotion?
-
assault rifle / assault weapon is really hard to define....per "assault weapons ban"
some define it as a "weapon that can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger"
but besides the mean looking combat guns....this definition would include all kinds of hunting rifles and even a 22 semi auto which are obviously not "assault rifles/weapons".
it is a real problem with defining what it is
-
Ban SPECIFIC MODELS of specific weapons,and add all new weapons to the banned list until it is submitted for approval, juat like the FDA approves drugs..
-
There already is a ban on assault rifles, without a special firearms license. ::)
-
Ban SPECIFIC MODELS of specific weapons,
based on what?
what is the definition?
-
Based on what the gun can do, silly.
If it can shoot a dozen dum-dum bullets in thirty seconds, then it does not belong in the hands of civilians.
Just like ownership of bazookas, cruise missiles and tanks is banned.
-
I would be against any legislation that arises from Newtown.
I think those against the 2nd Amendment should man up and push for its repeal.
-
Based on what the gun can do, silly.
If it can shoot a dozen dum-dum bullets in thirty seconds,
then it does not belong in the hands of civilians.
So a 22 caliber that can fire 12 bullets would be banned but a 357 that fires 8 would be ok?
Bushmasters that can fire 10 bullets instead of twelve would be ok?
Most semi-auto hunting rifles could shoot 12 bullets in thirty seconds.
Why don't you just be honest...and quit nickel and diming the issue.
It has nothing to do with assault rifles...whatever that means.
You want to ban all guns...you don't care about the Constitution.
You think you know better than the Founding Fathers!
-
We’re supposed to shut-up and listen as liberals, barely masking their unseemly delight at the opportunity, try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong. The conversation is then supposed to end with us waiving our fundamental right to self-defense.
Because that is what the goal is – a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. There’s always another “common sense” gun law which fails because it is targeted at law-abiding citizens and not criminals, thereby inviting another round of onerous new restrictions until finally no citizen is keeping or bearing anything more than a dull butter knife.
Well, almost no citizens. “Gun control” means all guns under the control of the government and available only to it and, of course, to politically connected cronies. Gun-grabbing poser Michael Bloomberg is going to be surrounded by enough fire power to remake the movie Heat. He’s always going to be protected. The purpose of gun control is to ensure that we aren’t.
-
You think you know better than the Founding Fathers!
===========================
The Founding Fathers knew the following, as I have already stated:
(1) over half the population in 1790 lived in some rural area. They depended on rifles to shoot game.
(2) No rifle could shoot more than once without reloading, a lengthy process involving powder horns, wadding lead shot and a ramrod.
(3) The Founding Fathers also knew that because of the dependence of most rural people on a gun for hunting game and defense against Indians and other aggressors, there was no way to take away the family gun.
This was a vastly different situation to on in which there are gun nuts that have dozens of high power weapons that can shoot dozens of times before reloading.
The Founding Fathers did not live in the same country or the same situation.
They also thought slaves were just fine, and didn't want to take them away, either. I imagine you approve of that today as well.
-
Why oh why oh why do anti constitutional folks keep trying to imply that the 2nd amendment is about hunters and their need to .....hunt apparently. :o Did the entire radical left flunk American History, how this country came about, and what the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights is all about??
-
The Founding Fathers did not live in the same country or the same situation
So you support the Constitution when you use it to further your failed collectivist
agenda, but when you disagree with the Constitution it's an outdated document?
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about hunting.
Your arguments are very weak.
-
Anybody who doesn't realize this is an assault rifle needs to go through the Army's AIT Infantry School. Maybe then they'll get an idea of what this rifle was built to do, auto capable or not. Jesus, you guys are living in a state of denial.
BSB
-
...and anyone that wants to keep calling a semiautomatic non-assault rifle, an assault rifle, needs to seriously take those ideological anti-gun blinders off. I realize you have emotion on your side, and can play up how "evil it looks". That still doesn't make it an assault rifle. It requires that it be able to fire in automatic mode. Simple as that
-
Man, you don't know shit about weapons do you. It has zero to do with looks. I haven't said a word about its looks. It's what it can do. I carried this very rifle in combat. I kept it on semi-auto just like this weapon. It is designed to kill people, lots of people, in a combat environment. That is the problem, not its looks. You just don't know anything, Sirs, that's your problem.
BSB
-
I may not be a soldier, I do know the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon, and the diference between an assault rifle and one that isn't.
Here's a hint, the Bushmaster may look mean and menacing, but until it can be fired in automatic mode, it's NOT an assault rifle. It's the functional component that makes it one or not one, not how evil it looks, or how well a soldier can use one
Again, I recommend that you don't go spreading around how you can illegally turn a legal semi-automatic weapon, into an illegal automatic one. Best keep that to yourself
-
I appologise.
WTF?
Dude don't be such a wussy.
No it is a fact.
I intended to discuss this at a low tempreture and maximum rationality.
Before I made this comment , I waited , but not long enough.
I saw one of the hosts on Fox news refuse to discuss the subject , untill the funerals are over .
I am chasened , that would have been a good idea.
I tryed, but in fact failed .
I still think there is a rational discussion to be had and I want to be a rational participant.
The emotional argument is akin to rolling dice , no telling what the result will be.
Effective solutions are not likely to be found that way.
-
We can still have that rational discussion, be it here, or in the thread Let's have that gun conversation (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/let's-have-that-gun-conversation/), but it's hard, when folks want to imply the 2nd amendment is an outdated reference to hunters, or that an assault rifle is an assault rifle if a soldier knows how to use it like one. Hell, with those parameters, a Winchester could be referred to as an assault rifle in the hands of a well trained soldier, since its apparently about "what it can do"
I remain hopeful that the discussion will indeed return to the rational, but I won't hold my breath
-
Sirs, I already said that looks don't play any part in my stating that the Bushmasters shown on this thread are in fact assault rifles. Yet, you keep bringing it up. Secondly, I never stated how to change one of these Bushmasters into a fully automatic weapon. That they can be is common knowledge, and frankly that you don't know that it's common knowledge is just another example of how limited your experience with, and understanding of, firearms is.
I'm not going to bother posting to you anymore. No one with a dollop of self-respect would post the way you do. And it's always a big mistake to get tangled up with people who have no self-respect.
BSB
-
In terms of the ban on assault wepons , the bushmaster either is or is not depending on what accessorys are on it.
With a montecarlo stock leagal.
Add a folding stock , or a pistol grip, or a grenade cup or a flash hider or a bayonet lug, choose one .
And it becomes illeagal.
Conversion to full auto was and is illeagal without the assault wepons ban, that is from previous legislation.
There is a good reason not to reinstate the assault wepon ban, no one can point to any success it ever had during the years it was in force.
-
Sirs, I already said that looks don't play any part in my stating that the Bushmasters shown on this thread are in fact assault rifles. Yet, you keep bringing it up. Secondly, I never stated how to change one of these Bushmasters into a fully automatic weapon. That they can be is common knowledge, and frankly that you don't know that it's common knowledge is just another example of how limited your experience with, and understanding of, firearms is.
No, what you've said, that in the hands of a soldier, even a semi-automatic weapon can be very deadly. Basically spouting points not in contention. That soldiers often prefer the semi-automatic mode vs the automatic mode. Again, not in debate.
The issue is what MAKES an assault rifle a military assault weapon, NOT how a weapon can be used, or how well it can kill. What MAKES an assault weapon an assault rifle is the functional ability to fire in automatic mode. Without it, it's not an assault rifle. Period, end of sentence. Again, under your parameters of what it can do, an old west lever action Henry rifle would be an assault rifle, in the hands of a soldier who could use it
Hunting rifles can fire pretty much as fast, and with higher velocity. In fact, the internal mechanisms of firing a bullet from a standard clip fed hunting rifle are pretty damn similar to this Bushmaster. The only real difference........its LOOKS. It LOOKS like something the military would use. The reason military do use it is because its lighter, with less recoil, using a smaller bullet, with a lower velocity, than most hunting rifles. Not to mention they can legally feed it larger than 10 round magazines, and their version DOES have the option to fire in automatic mode, making it a true assault rifle....that hunting rifles can not
And yea, you did claim if you knew what you were doing, you could alter a legal semi automatic weapon into an illegal fully automatic one....in just a few minutes. If you don't know what your doing, I guess that gets you off the hook. If you do.....well, my recommendation is again to keep that to yourself.
So much for the notion that I have some feeble understanding of firearms. Shot down on the CCW issue, and now here....pun intended
-
Secondly, I never stated how to change one of these Bushmasters into a fully automatic weapon.
ooops, hand got caught in the cookie jar (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/bushmaster/msg148257/#msg148257). True, you didn't say how, only that you could, which is what I've been referencing all along. Best keep that information to yourself
-
It does not look like somethoing particularly designed to shoot deer.
As has been already explained, that's not its purpose, to shoot deer. A semi-automatic's primary purpose, especially that of the Bushmaster, is one of self defense
-
"the bushmaster either is or is not depending on what accessories are on it"
Rubbish. I'm not talking about some political definition of an assault rifle, or some asinine law allowing a bayonet lug or not. I'm talking about THE WEAPON AND WHAT IT CAN DO. WAKE UP, THIS IS A COMBAT RIFLE!
BSB
-
"the bushmaster either is or is not depending on what accessories are on it"
Rubbish. I'm not talking about some political definition of an assault rifle, or some asinine law allowing a bayonet lug or not. I'm talking about THE WEAPON AND WHAT IT CAN DO. WAKE UP, THIS IS A COMBAT RIFLE!
BSB
I am in total agreement that the asaault wepon ban was poorly written so much so that assinine is an apt word for it.
YOU SHOULD WAKE UP!
The law that will be written by very emotional people who know little about the wepon will again be innefective and useless , as the assault wepon ban was before , did it even annoy criminals? There is no evidence of any kind that that law prevented any injurys of any kind.
The M-1 carbine was never included , but any wepon with folding stocks could have been .Ignorance isn't important if effectiveness is not one of the aims of the legislation.
With much shouting Politicians can harvest this public emotion whether they care or not , whether they know anything about the wepons or not.No import, the purpose is to get voted for and the ignorance of the public was depended on .
I would like to explore ideas that would make schools safer , I would like to discuss ideas that would have good effect on other environments and improve safety.
I am not convinced that any ban on wepons can accomplish this, one of the worst cases , of this sort, in the world happened in a European Country with tougher law than we have , the perpetrator was willing to drive across Europe to obtain his wepon.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13448753-norway-massacre-gunman-anders-breivik-declared-sane-gets-21-year-sentence?lite (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24/13448753-norway-massacre-gunman-anders-breivik-declared-sane-gets-21-year-sentence?lite)
-
Look, I'm not talking about any law banning any other weapon. I'm talking about THIS weapon. Do you have any idea what I could do with just 5 other well trained ex soldiers, who know how to tap their dark side, all armed with a semi-auto Bushmaster? I could kill everybody in a restaurant that sits over one hundred people before the police were even notified. YOU WAKE UP, this is an extraordinarily dangerous firearm, trust me, I know.
BSB
-
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/07/robert-farago/norwegian-spree-killer-anders-behring-breivik-used-ruger-mini-14/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/07/robert-farago/norwegian-spree-killer-anders-behring-breivik-used-ruger-mini-14/)
This writer , not impressed with Anders Breivik choice of wepon , not just a murderer , also a poser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks)
Lots of detail, including two copycat attacks.
I learn in this article that I thought wrong about his buying wepons in Eastern Europe, he went to Prauge and was disapointed. Although Norway has tougher laws and Prague has more black market he couldn't make the connection there.
He requested to attend his trial in a uniform of his own design, perhaps he really is a poser, and a murder or seventy are just part of the posing.
-
Look, I'm not talking about any law banning any other weapon. I'm talking about THIS weapon. Do you have any idea what I could do with just 5 other well trained ex soldiers, who know how to tap their dark side, all armed with a semi-auto Bushmaster? I could kill everybody in a restaurant that sits over one hundred people before the police were even notified.
Thanks for helping reinforce the idea that the best deterrent is someone(s) already armed at the restaurant, that could put a severe crimp in your dark side soldiering, vs waiting for the police to show up while the murderers gun down all the defenseless folk
Oh, I'm pretty sure they could also lay waste to everyone at a McDonalds, loaded for bear with lever action Henrys. Because of course the issue is "what you can do" ::)
-
Look, I'm not talking about any law banning any other weapon. I'm talking about THIS weapon. Do you have any idea what I could do with just 5 other well trained ex soldiers, who know how to tap their dark side, all armed with a semi-auto Bushmaster? I could kill everybody in a restaurant that sits over one hundred people before the police were even notified. YOU WAKE UP, this is an extraordinarily dangerous firearm, trust me, I know.
BSB
If you have better than the ordinary Army training I don't doubt that you can be very deadly with this .
If you and your friends were intent on causing harm you could be very deadly with a lot less.
If you found contacts in the black market I don't doubt that you could obtain much more.
How banned should you be?
And would you indeed seek a venue for violence where you were likely to be unopposed for at least a while?
-
Look, I'm not talking about any law banning any other weapon. I'm talking about THIS weapon. Do you have any idea what I could do with just 5 other well trained ex soldiers, who know how to tap their dark side, all armed with a semi-auto Bushmaster? I could kill everybody in a restaurant that sits over one hundred people before the police were even notified.
Thanks for helping reinforce the idea that the best deterrent is someone(s) already armed at the restaurant, that could put a severe crimp in your dark side soldiering, vs waiting for the police to show up while the murderers gun down all the defenseless folk
Oh, I'm pretty sure they could also lay waste to everyone at a McDonalds, loaded for bear with lever action Henrys. Because of course the issue is "what you can do" ::)
To me it seems unlikely that we will be able to really come to a resolution in our little group , or in the wider society .
But this exploration does seem to point up the vunerability of people who are in crouds.
I think that is a truth, the "safety in numbers" idea can be reversed.
-
Blah, blah, laws, blah, posers, blah, blah, mini 14, blah blah, Norway.
We are talking about one thing. The Bushmaster/CAR/M16 style weapon and what it can do. I say, ban it.
BSB
p.s. I just saw your last post, Plane. Yes you can get more on the black marget. My point is, you don't need anymore. This, the Bushmaster, will do just fine. That's the problem.
-
Good thing you're not oppressor-n-chief. After the next tragedy it'll be emotional rants to ban just that weapon. Then following the next tragedy, it'll be emotional rants to ban that weapon
Just man up and declare ban them all, except for those you chose can keep of course
-
Blah, blah, laws, blah, posers, blah, blah, mini 14, blah blah, Norway.
We are talking about one thing. The Bushmaster/CAR/M16 style weapon and what it can do. I say, ban it.
BSB
p.s. I just saw your last post, Plane. Yes you can get more on the black marget. My point is, you don't need anymore. This, the Bushmaster, will do just fine. That's the problem.
Ok if you want a narrow focus , that can be a good thing.
So if you were writing the law , what features of the bushmaster would need to be banned ?
Color?Size ? Shape ? Caliber? Magazine type and capacity?Flashider? Semi Auto action?
If it is banned , and all that have the pertanant features you choose are also banned , what result do you expect?
-
The name of the thread is BUSHMASTER. Of course I'm focusing on that weapon. Further, it was the murder weapon in Conn. Ban the use of the M16 style receiver and bolt group on civilian firearms, not the features. I already went over how asinine laws that go after things like bayonet lugs are.
BSB
-
All of the AR-15 type wepon?
Could a manufacturer get around this ban with a cosmetic change , or is your idea to ban the gas cylinder or perhaps the bolt ?
-
So, you're just a smart ass like sirs huh plane. I said the receiver and bolt group.
BSB
-
So it can look just as military as the assault version, just more design changes...........which does what exactly, as it relates to preventing such future crimes at the hands of a mindless murderer?
-
So, you're just a smart ass like sirs huh plane. I said the receiver and bolt group.
BSB
Of course I am , what should I pretend?
The Assault wepons ban that arose from the Clinton administration failed , and this is one of the reasons .
The enforcement had to be capricious , because what exactly had been forbidden was so vague , confused and wrong.
It was not written with solving any particular problem in mind , just written to show that something was being done.
I don't think that a class of wepons can easily be described for ban , except by caricteristics of capability.
Of course once you have banned these , you only garuntee that the next massacre will be with a black market gun or with something elese, nothing that will keep another massaqcer from happening.
-
4,200 Coloradans Buy Guns
Day After Sandy Hook
by William Bigelow
18 Dec 2012 36
(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/CT%20Shooting/gun-sales-reuters.png)
Unlike what leftists believe, when a tragedy like the Newtown massacre occurs, Americans don't want to ban guns, they want to buy guns. In Colorado on Saturday, one day after the shootings in Connecticut, there were so many gun-purchase background check requests that it set a one-day record.
Colorado thought the previous record of 4,028 background checks set on Black Friday after Thanksgiving this year would stand for a while, but it was broken by the 4,200 requests on Saturday.
Richard Taylor, owner of the combination gun store and indoor firing range L & M Firing Line, said "This is the busiest we've ever been. As soon as they announced that the President (Barack Obama) was going to start speaking and possibly mention gun control, yeah things just went crazy. And Saturday and Sunday, I've never seen anything like it."
One customer said, "All the mass shootings, everything we've seen on the news, people are more concerned with protecting their home, their families."
After the Aurora shootings earlier this year, where an AR-15 assault rifle was used, there is a feeling that the Obama Administration may ban AR-15 assault rifles.
Another Firing Line customer said, "There's so much controversy over (AR-15s) that they feel, well I need to get one because they may never be able to get one again."
Taylor noted the increased waiting time for background checks; he said that the Colorado Bureau of Investigation usually takes 15 minutes to process one, but in the aftermath of Connecticut, they are taking up to 23 hours. He added, "There are 2,134 people waiting for background checks right now. This is as high as I've ever seen it -- absolutely. Prior to this we thought 1,100 (pending background checks) was really high."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/18/4-200-Coloradans-Buy-Guns-Day-After-Sandy-Hook (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/18/4-200-Coloradans-Buy-Guns-Day-After-Sandy-Hook)
-
We’re supposed to shut-up and listen as liberals, barely masking their unseemly delight at the opportunity, try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong. The conversation is then supposed to end with us waiving our fundamental right to self-defense.
Because that is what the goal is – a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. There’s always another “common sense” gun law which fails because it is targeted at law-abiding citizens and not criminals, thereby inviting another round of onerous new restrictions until finally no citizen is keeping or bearing anything more than a dull butter knife.
Well, almost no citizens. “Gun control” means all guns under the control of the government and available only to it and, of course, to politically connected cronies. Gun-grabbing poser Michael Bloomberg is going to be surrounded by enough fire power to remake the movie Heat. He’s always going to be protected. The purpose of gun control is to ensure that we aren’t.
-
Interesting enough that in United States v. Miller, which preceded Heller as the definitive Scotus ruling concerning the 2nd, sawed off shotguns were allowed to be regulated because the justices erroneously thought that sawed off shotguns were not part of the Army Ordnance and thus had no bearing on the unorganized militia clause.
-
Interesting.....so, if I'm reading this right, which I could easily not be, the closer the look of a weapon to that of the military kin, the less government is allowed to "regulate them"?
-
A sawed off shotgun loaded with buckshot is a VERY GOOD deterrent to an attack by any armed person.
I don't know whether the Army issues them or not, but I am pretty sure that there are at least a few in the hands of troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps elsewhere.
The whole idea that there is a "well-regulated militia" consisting of men (and perhaps women, there has been no ruling on that) who are totally unaware that they are a part of an "organized militia". is a joke.
Militias were common in Missouri until the time of the Civil War. I don't know how well men were trained, but there was a standing militia. When the Civil War started, the local yokels attempted to take possession of the weapons stored in the militia's forts, and in some cases succeeded. The elected governor of MO proclaimed the secession of MO from the Union, but the commandant of the garrison in St Louis took Jefferson City and proclaimed the secession as never having happened. MO had an exile government in Texas until the defeat of the CSA.
After the Civil War, the militias were not reconstituted, because there was a lot of animosity on both sides. Similar events occurred in other states.
-
According to the Miller decision the unorganized militia was part of the framers plans to avoid a standing army.This militia was to bring it's own weapons to the fray, thus the need to keep pace with those ordnance issued to the regular militias and the Army.
BTW they did use sawed off shotguns during WWI primarily while guarding prisoners but also during trench fighting. The Army order 40k of them for the troops.
I am not a gun owner. I do not belong to the NRA. I am not a gun nut. But the 2nd has little to do with hunting, or what a person needs. It is about defending yourself, you loved ones, and your property from enemies foreign and domestic.
It just pisses me off when people make up shit as they go along.
-
The Second Amendment no longer has much to do with hunting, but when it was written, it most certainly did. The Founding Fathers had no power to confiscate guns from anyone, by the way. I doubt that the states could have done this, either.
In a country where most of the people live in the country and depend on hunting to feed themselves, which was what this country was in the 1780's, it was certainly important. And again, the guns then were one shot muzzle loading black powder weapons, not anything like what was used to massacre all those children.
-
The Second Amendment no longer has much to do with hunting
IT NEVER HAD MUCH TO DO WITH HUNTING. IN FACT IT NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING. DID THE 1ST AMENDMENT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING?? THE 4TH?? THE 5TH??
The Founding Fathers had no power to confiscate guns from anyone, by the way.
So now that they potentially have that power....that justifies it in your mind?? Do you even grasp what you'd be implying?? PRECISELY that which the founders were trying to protect us from, via the Constitution & Bill of Rights
In a country where most of the people live in the country and depend on hunting to feed themselves, which was what this country was in the 1780's, it was certainly important. And again, the guns then were one shot muzzle loading black powder weapons, not anything like what was used to massacre all those children.
So, on Xo's planet Oppressive, not only would the law abiding not have anything to defend themselves with, but if by the grace of the almighty government you did have something, it'd be 1 shot....so that as the 4 hoodlums come at you, you can at least try to take out 1 before you get slaughtered, by the others. :o
-
Crank it back a notch or two Sirs.
Certainly the 2nd had some to do with hunting as the 2nd was meant to protect the the right to bear arms in order to protect life, liberty, and property. Hunting using a tool such as a long gun would aid in that pursuit of happiness as a full belly makes one happier than an empty one.
-
No, it wasn't BT. It had NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. No more than any other of the Bill of Rights. The fact it didn't interfere with hunters isn't why the founders wrote the 2nd amendment. To protect AGAINST AN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT's efforts to take away a person's life, liberty, and property. Not an oppressive bear ::)
-
In the "bill of rights" there are enumerated rights and certain limits on how much the government may affect those rights.
There is no admendment to protect blacksmithing , farming or throwing pots, the first ten admendments are not about livelyhood.
The Second admendment made sense to the people who wrote it, it made sense to the people who ratified it and it made sense to the people generally , it protected a right.
No , not the right of the army to be armed , that is silly.
Not the right of the people to hunt , that is kinda silly too.
It is the right to make onself dangerous , is it not?
The government s right to make you shut up is limited in the first admendment and the governments ability to make you harmless against your will is limited in the second admendment.
-
So you are saying that hunting with a rifle did not happen in 1789( and i know you aren't)? The second was not written to enshrine the right to hunt, I never claimed it was, but it certainly was written to allow the bearing of arms one of which purposes could be hunting.
But just as the 2nd did not enumerate the right to hunt it didn't enumerate the right to overthrow an oppressive government. It simply enumerates the right to bear arms.
-
So you are saying that hunting with a rifle did not happen in 1789( and i know you aren't)? The second was not written to enshrine the right to hunt, I never claimed it was, but it certainly was written to allow the bearing of arms one of which purposes could be hunting.
But just as the 2nd did not enumerate the right to hunt it didn't enumerate the right to overthrow an oppressive government. It simply enumerates the right to bear arms.
Where and why would a right to hunt need to be in an admendment? There is no other job description protected so.
There is no enumerated right to gather food in any other means .
The constitution was written by revolutionarys , they had fought a king who had ordered them disarmed.
Everything in the constitution was argued over , some things were compromises .
But none of the members of the constitutional convention wanted the USA to be a lot like the regime they had just overthrown.
So the second admendment is a lot like the forth , it forbids one of the things the king did that bothered them.
-
What the Second Amendment DOES state is that the right to bear arms is necessary for a"well-regulated militia". This does not apply to the National Guard anymore, since the Guard gets all its weapons from the national government.
The "Well-Regulated Militia" does not exist in this country,and has not existed for a really long time, since before the Civil War.
No militia could be "well-regulated" unless the members knew they were members.
-
So you are saying that hunting with a rifle did not happen in 1789( and i know you aren't)? The second was not written to enshrine the right to hunt, I never claimed it was, but it certainly was written to allow the bearing of arms one of which purposes could be hunting.
But just as the 2nd did not enumerate the right to hunt it didn't enumerate the right to overthrow an oppressive government. It simply enumerates the right to bear arms.
You're making my point....that the 2nd amendment doesn't infringe on hunters doesn't defacto make it about, or even "much to do with" hunting, which is what Xo keeps referring to.
It has everything to do, about attempting to protect us from an oppressive government
-
What the Second Amendment DOES state is that the right to bear arms is necessary for a"well-regulated militia". This does not apply to the National Guard anymore, since the Guard gets all its weapons from the national government.
The "Well-Regulated Militia" does not exist in this country,and has not existed for a really long time, since before the Civil War.
That matter has already been addressed......and debunked, not to mention put to rest by the recent SCOTUS ruling. I mean, you can keep arguing a non point.....knock yourself out
-
What the Second Amendment DOES state is that the right to bear arms is necessary for a"well-regulated militia". This does not apply to the National Guard anymore, since the Guard gets all its weapons from the national government.
The "Well-Regulated Militia" does not exist in this country,and has not existed for a really long time, since before the Civil War.
No militia could be "well-regulated" unless the members knew they were members.
Fine , training is a good idea for people who are going to carry a gun , even just a little bit.
Would a standardised training in firearms help?
http://www.odcmp.com/ (http://www.odcmp.com/)
We may have to stop waiting for people to volenteer , as you are pointing out , truely, too many people are unaware that their govenor or President or community has a right to call on them as a militia.
-
It has everything to do, about attempting to protect us from an oppressive government
So it isn't meant to protect us from an invading army? Or civil rebellion?
-
As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
Hmmmm...
I guess that "the security of a free state" is what the admendment is about, so if a militia can help repulse an invasion that would be appropriate, has this ever happened?
Militias are not formed for hunting partys and hunting is little related to "the security of a free state" so I disagree about the garuntee for hunting.
Do you see as I do , a mandate in here for the state to maintain the order of the militia and thus implied a right of the state to impress soldiers from the citizens?
-
The fact that the governor could call up units from the citizenry to consolidate a militia, is not in question. The necessity of a militia, comprised of citizen soldiers, required them to provide their own arms, if they could afford to. So in effect, citizens would need to have arms at the ready.
Hmm. I wonder if this was the first mandate.
-
It has everything to do, about attempting to protect us from an oppressive government
So it isn't meant to protect us from an invading army? Or civil rebellion?
That pretty much fits into the hunting category, as that's not the purpose of the Bill of Rights. But yea, it sure would help in those endeavors, as it would in hunting bear
-
Perhaps you can show me where in the second, oppressive governments are mentioned.
-
It is pretty certain that all the firearms owned by the citizens in 1780 were used far more for hunting than any other purpose.
-
Perhaps you can show me where in the second, oppressive governments are mentioned.
Or better perhaps you can read the Bill of Rights, as in all of them, for context. Here's a hint, no where does it referencing hunting.
-
It is pretty certain that all the firearms owned by the citizens in 1780 were used far more for hunting than any other purpose.
Which means......nothing as it relates, to the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution ::)
-
Perhaps you can show me where in the second, oppressive governments are mentioned.
Or better perhaps you can read the Bill of Rights, as in all of them, for context. Here's a hint, no where does it referencing hunting.
Which Amendment gives us the right to overthrow an oppressive government.
Be Specific.
-
Strange how I never claimed it did. Oh well. Hope that was specific enough
-
But you did. You claimed the second was written for the purpose of protecting from oppressive government. You were pretty adamant about it. You said i should search the amendments for context to that claim. Not there.
I think you inferred that would be one of the purposes of firearms. But you seemed to poo poo the idea that ownership of firearms would be a great boon to hunting or even pushing back invading countries or civil unrest. The main point being an armed populous was not only legal it was encouraged.
I find it curious that your inference is the only correct deduction, at least in your mind.
-
But I didn't......."It has everything to do, about attempting to protect us from an oppressive government". No where in that quote am I saying there's some dictated right to overthrow an oppressive government. Those are YOUR words, not mine
Yea, I think that's specific enough, as far as playing this latest word game of yours
-
In order to overthrow one must attempt to protect. And again where is it written in the text of the second that that is the main purpose.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[79]
While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[citation needed]
I posit that if anyone at all understood what is ment in the wording of the second admendment , James Madison would know what was ment when he wrote it.
So what James Madison writes in explanation (Federalist Papers) is pertanant.
-
Which means......nothing as it relates, to the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution ::)
===========================================
Except that if one has no rifles, it is lots harder to hunt. Imagine hunting bears with a dagger. And again, the Feds knew that they did not have the capability of disarming a largely rural population, anyway.
It is unrealistic and silly to assume that the Founding Fathers were not politicians and did not think and describe things as politicians always do.
-
Which Amendment gives us the right to overthrow an oppressive government.Be Specific.
The Declaration of Independence does.
Also states like New Hampshire, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Maryland
and Texas have a "right to revolution" written in their Constitutions.
-
In order to overthrow one must attempt to protect. And again where is it written in the text of the second that that is the main purpose.
You have my comments twisted as usual. I have made no reference to a right to overthrow. That was your leap. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to help protect against an oppressive government. There is no declaration that we're allowed to overthrow, in the Bill of Rights, merely that the Bill of Rights are limitations placed on what the Government can do. You know that, which begs the question, why are you playing this game? Can't get any clearer than that....and note that none of them make any reference to hunting
-
Which means......nothing as it relates, to the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution ::)
===========================================
Except that if one has no rifles, it is lots harder to hunt.
As Homer Simpson might say....d'uh,....though hunting with bow & arrow was common as well,
Which again means absolutely nothing, as it relates to the 2nd amendment to the Constitution :o If you don't have the right clothes on, that can also make it harder to hunt. If you cover yourself in some form of fish scent, that can REALLY make it harder to hunt. If you have a very noisy neighbor coming along with you, that too can make it a lot harder to hunt. There's a whole host of things that can make it harder to hunt, and none of them having to do with the 2nd amendment
And again, the Feds knew that they did not have the capability of disarming a largely rural population, anyway.
Any why would they, even if they could, given how the country was founded??
-
How does one protect against an oppressive government with firearms?
What is the process that is implied by the 2nd?
-
It's called defending oneself. That's the primary purpose of firearms, as it relates to the 2nd amendment. Notice how that isn't some written right to overthrow, nor any inference to better hunting
Can we be thru with this, now?
-
Can we be thru with this, now?
No you haven't answered my questions to my satisfaction.
So you pull your gun on the oppressing government.
What happens next?
What do you think the founders envisioned would be the result of taking up arms against the oppressors.
What did they do when they declared independence?
What was the end result?
-
How does one protect against an oppressive government with firearms?
see syria
see chechnya
see places all over the globe
it's been happening for centuries
-
How does one protect against an oppressive government with firearms?
see syria
see chechnya
see places all over the globe
it's been happening for centuries
That's nice. But what do those countries have to do with the 2nd Amendment?
And what was the end result of those actions?
-
That's nice. But what do those countries have to do with the 2nd Amendment?
And what was the end result of those actions?
You asked a question I answered it.
As for your new questions.....
Those gvts are dealing with an armed pissed off populace.
It's easier for a gvt to do whatever they want against an unarmed populace.
Our gvt tries to take 270 million weapons away from it's citizens
I guess we'll find out what the result will be.
I predict it would not be pretty.
Obama is going to try to push the envelope with executive orders
Obama will try an "end around" the Constitution to get his way
Liberals often try to subvert the will of the people
We'll see how it turns out.....
-
So you think the end result will be an overthrowing of the oppressing gvt.
That is the direction Syria is heading. As was the direction Llibya took.
Whether they remain free of oppressors of course remains to be seen. See Egypt.
-
So you think the end result will be an overthrowing of the oppressing gvt.
That is the direction Syria is heading. As was the direction Llibya took.
Whether they remain free of oppressors of course remains to be seen. See Egypt.
No way to know....really I mainly think these are part of a world chess game
Not even sure who all the real players are and/or what their goals are
Obama threw out Khadafi just like Bush threw out Saddam
Now Obama and the Saudis are trying to throw out Assad.
I dont think these are some legit revolutions "of the people".
Sure the people are pissed off...but they have will have no real say now or later
These are chess game manuevers........
-
How does one protect against an oppressive government with firearms?
What is the process that is implied by the 2nd?
How would answer the same questions BT?
Do you think the 2nd was talking about "hunting"?
-
The procedure for declairing independance from England required the convention of a congress which signed a declaration of independeance.
Then after the forms were delivered the process of shooting started.
The shooting started, I think, during an attempt by the British to confiscate some milita muskets.
-
As to your first question, if i were to use firearms to protect myself from an oppressive government, i would do all in my power to to rid the country of that oppressive government, whether that be by cutting the head off the snake or toppling the whole damn thing.
As to your second. Owning a firearm facilitates the act of hunting. It is not the reason to be for the second. If you look back, i never claimed it was the primary reason for the amendment.
-
It wasn't even a secondary reason as an Amendment to the Bill of Rights.......or a 3rd......or pick any #.
-
Hunting is important , but it is shrinking , fewer hunters buy the liscense every year.
Gun sales are still rising even as hunting is shrinking.
So I suppose the purportion of guns being bought for the purpose of hunting is doubly shrinking.
-
It wasn't even a secondary reason as an Amendment to the Bill of Rights.......or a 3rd......or pick any #.
And you know this because?
-
It wasn't even a secondary reason as an Amendment to the Bill of Rights.......or a 3rd......or pick any #.
And you know this because?
Perhaps he has read Federalist Papers No. 46 by James Madison?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers/No._46 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers/No._46)
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. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the People of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate Governments, to which the People are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier, against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple Government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the Governments are afraid to trust the People with arms
-
Perhaps he should look over the English Bill of Rights from 1689.
-
Perhaps he should look over the English Bill of Rights from 1689.
Is that the one that provides a right to Prodestants to bear arms?
-
I believe the Catholics and Protestants were falling in and out of favor depending on who was king, so i think you are looking at the right document.
-
It wasn't even a secondary reason as an Amendment to the Bill of Rights.......or a 3rd......or pick any #.
And you know this because?
Because I've seen the rest of our Bill of Rights......in context. NOTHING to do with hunting. If you think it was, please provide the appropriate texts and linkage. And please be specific
-
I never claimed the 2nd was written to protect hunting rights. It was written to protect the rights to bear arms. What the arms are used for is not delineated in the text.
Re: The Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 you will find this section illuminating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Influence_of_the_English_Bill_of_Rights_of_1689 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Influence_of_the_English_Bill_of_Rights_of_1689)
-
So if the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution isn't about hunting in any way, why all this grief thrown at me, when I make that same point to Xo?? Was I too emphatic?? Too sure of myself??, (which was based on the totality of what the Bill of Rights is all about)
-
Again, in the 1780's hunting with a rifle was as ordinary as parking in a parking lot is today. The fact is that this was not Europe, where every square acre belonged to someone and hunting there was trespassing and could get you arrested or killed, it was America, where much land was free and available to hunters, settlers, anyone who had the gumption to do something on it or with it. The British had declared that the colonies would not extend beyond the Alleghenys and other set boundaries, and that was what riled the people on the frontier, who practiced slash and burn agriculture at the time.
-
Why do you keep arguing a point, not in dispute? that firearms, in the day, were frequently used for hunting?? :o
-
That would be because you are apparently too damn stupid to see the connection. What politicians always do is they try to make doing something that requires no action at all (such as letting all the pioneers keep their hunting rifles) into some Great Humanitarian Cause.
It would have been both impossible and stupid to try to confiscate all those single shot rifles and dueling pistols from the citizens in 1780.
I am all for everyone having the right to bear those same weapons today.
-
That would be because you are apparently too damn stupid to see the connection.
Is that the connection between the 2nd amendment and the Bill or Rights? The connection between that the Bill of Rights is all about? Here's a hint, it had NOTHING to do with hunting
What politicians always do is they try to make doing something that requires no action at all (such as letting all the pioneers keep their hunting rifles) into some Great Humanitarian Cause.
The Bill of Rights to the Constitution had prescious little to do with Humanitarian Causes. That's what the left has tried to do in re-defining the Constitution.
It would have been both impossible and stupid to try to confiscate all those single shot rifles and dueling pistols from the citizens in 1780.
Which again is a completely different point, to this whole tangent you've taken on
I am all for everyone having the right to bear those same weapons today.
Yea, let's make sure we only get 1 shot out to that group of 5 thugs coming at you. :o
-
You will never rescue me, dolt. I have been on this planet for 70 years and have never seen you or been in danger of being shot.
It would be like taking out an insurance policy against my being eaten by a Kimodo dragon while on a roller coaster.
-
Why would I rescue you, dolt squared? :o
-
You just said that you would. Read your own stupid posts.
-
I did. Rest assured, I wouldn't be....making you wrong, yet again
-
That would be because you are apparently too damn stupid to see the connection. What politicians always do is they try to make doing something that requires no action at all (such as letting all the pioneers keep their hunting rifles) into some Great Humanitarian Cause.
It would have been both impossible and stupid to try to confiscate all those single shot rifles and dueling pistols from the citizens in 1780.
I am all for everyone having the right to bear those same weapons today.
You are coming along !
Shall we agree that the modern equivelent of what they had then is what we should have now?
After all we don't use horses for basic transport in the civilian world nor in the military.
In George Washingtons day there was several times the firepower in private hands as there was in the possession of the military.
And most of the founders thought it was a good idea that the public be more deadly than the government.
-
I will agree that everyone can have a black powder, one shot muzzle loading gun of technology no more modern than 1780 .
That is all the Founding Fathers had in mind and everyone knows this.
-
I will agree that everyone can have a black powder, one shot muzzle loading gun of technology no more modern than 1780 .
That is all the Founding Fathers had in mind and everyone knows this.
No .
Clearly the foundig fathes were pleased with the fact on the ground , that the people ownd more forepower than tthe government.
-
Ooooo....touche', Plane 8)
-
I am not convinced that any ban on wepons can accomplish this, one of the worst cases , of this sort, in the world happened in a European Country with tougher law than we have , the perpetrator was willing to drive across Europe to obtain his wepon.
======================================
There was only ONE such incident in Norway in 50 years or more. We have massacres yearly.
This is a classic example of making the perfect (no massacres) the enemy of the good (practically no massacres).
-
2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution......the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed. You're not going to ban guns in this country, no matter how much jumping up & down you do, while holding your breath. You can spout irrational nonsense like "if there are no guns there are no crimes with guns", but that doesn't change:
- U.S. citizens have just as much a right to own firearms as they do to verbally trash their president
- that more lives are saved in this country using a gun, then those taken
- that law abiding civilians on scene of a mass shooting, with their gun stop a minimum of 10+deaths, than if its the Police that are 1st on scene
- that areas with more permissive gun laws have lower violent crime, than those with far stricter gun laws
- that nearly all these mass shootings occur in areas where guns are severely restricted, if not banned, from the law abiding good guys
Those are all FACTS. Not mine, not Plane's, not Cu4's, just FACTS, that refute the ongoing asinine notion that simply less guns means less crime
-
They are not facts.
They would have to be true to be facts.
-
Which they are both. As I said, ignorance heads the class for the left, when it comes to guns and their use in this country
-
No one has called up a militias since the Civil War. The fact that it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights does not mean that it actually exists.
For it to exist, the very least that has to happen is that the government (state or federal) has to announce that it exists and the terms under which it can be called up.
-
You can choose not to believe the truth about gun use in this country, and ignore the facts, as they currently have been referenced many a time in here. You can try to deflect with the ongoing debate about militias, when the Supreme Court has already clarified it, not to mention the consistency within the Bill of Rights that clearly references individual rights. I get it, these facts are....inconvenient to how evil guns are supposed to be, and how lunatic gun owners are supposed to be.
This country was founded on breaking away from an oppressive Givernment, and why the 2nd amendment is so important to each and every one of us, as are the other 9 amendments.
So, yea, you can do all that....it still doesn't change any of the facts already layed out. But if it makes you feel better.....as that cliche' goes, ignorance is indeed bliss
-
No one has called up a militias since the Civil War. The fact that it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights does not mean that it actually exists.
For it to exist, the very least that has to happen is that the government (state or federal) has to announce that it exists and the terms under which it can be called up.
That sounds doable.
And it gives the government a chance and an excuse to eveluate the militia members , having a militia suitability file on everyone.
-
There is no use for any such militia. Weapons are very expensive and complicated, They were used in the past to punish Indian raiders, and were somewhat useful in the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War. They were more a nuisance than a benefit in the Civil War, since they called up militiamen for periods of up to one year. When the time was up, they went home, whether the war was over or not. Sometimes they just up and quit. There was no serious penalty for desertion.
No one is going to reestablish any militias in this country unless we are invaded.
I see that the popularity of the inane film Red Dawn (in which the US is invaded by Nicaraguans and Cubans) has been remade. This time, we have been invaded by North Koreans.
Duh.
-
I think Plane's point went right over Xo's head ;)
-
There is no use for any such militia. Weapons are very expensive and complicated, They were used in the past to punish Indian raiders, and were somewhat useful in the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War. They were more a nuisance than a benefit in the Civil War, since they called up militiamen for periods of up to one year. When the time was up, they went home, whether the war was over or not. Sometimes they just up and quit. There was no serious penalty for desertion.
No one is going to reestablish any militias in this country unless we are invaded.
I see that the popularity of the inane film Red Dawn (in which the US is invaded by Nicaraguans and Cubans) has been remade. This time, we have been invaded by North Koreans.
Duh.
I thought the state militias were big players on both sides of the civil war.
-
Perhaps the modern equivalent of an unorganized militia is a posse or a search party, organized by the local authorities, usually the sheriff.
-
Perhaps the modern equivalent of an unorganized militia is a posse or a search party, organized by the local authorities, usually the sheriff.
Who does the sheriff call ?
Do sheriffs make lists of suitable citizens to call to assist in cases where the number gathered is a greater factor than the skill of each?
There has to be a minimum skill and also there have to be unwilling persons.
That list of the willing and able , yes that is a militia.
-
It can't be run by anyone that gets its marching orders or answers to the Government. Defeats the whole purpose
-
I thought the state militias were big players on both sides of the civil war.
==========================================
They were for the first years, but the problem was that the militias did not have any way of forcing militiamen to stay in after the year was up. At the beginning of the Civil War, both sides believed that they would easily beat the other side and be home for Christmas.
As you may know, this did not happen.
After the Civil War, the Southern militias were disbanded and banned from reorganizing. The Northern militias were never reorganized in most states. The Missouri militias vanished entirely.
-
Who does the sheriff call ?
Do sheriffs make lists of suitable citizens to call to assist in cases where the number gathered is a greater factor than the skill of each?
There has to be a minimum skill and also there have to be unwilling persons.
That list of the willing and able , yes that is a militia.
MY guess in the example i am thinking of the ones called would be those with knowledge of the lay of the land. Think lost hiker.
I would also guess that those with criminal records might not be on the call list.
-
It can't be run by anyone that gets its marching orders or answers to the Government. Defeats the whole purpose
Nonsense.
-
No, complete sense. If one is being given orders by the Government, by definition they can't be defending the populace against that government. Again, that's the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights.
The organized portion of the militia IS the portion run by the Government. They're the ones who are largely responsible for defending this nation against foreign invaders, or terrorists, who whoever.
That's NOT the militia being referred to int ehd 2nd amendment however, as I've already explained. The militia in the 2nd amendment can't be run by the Government.........unless you're saying these government employees have changed sides (in the event of an overt oppressive regime attempting to take root) In that case, they're no longer taking their orders from the Government, so local folks, such as sherriffs and the sort can definately be considered part of that 2nd amendment militia
-
No, complete sense. If one is being given orders by the Government, by definition they can't be defending the populace against that government. Again, that's the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights limited federal government. That being the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights. Resisting an overreaching federal government would be a logical use of a state militia, organized or not.
Your statement was nonsense.
-
I can imagine a militia being formed and maintained by private concern , that might be a good description of Pinkerton.
But what does such an entity do to prevent the government from treating them as pirates?
Or what does happen when two militias of this sort clash?
Like Pinkerton and an armed coal mining union?
Oh wait , this stuff has happened a couple of times , we don't have to wonder.
-
The Pinkertons were hired as a goon squad to break up unions back in the 1920's. There is a film about it, Matewan, about the WV mining town of the same name.
The mining company cut wages and the miners went out on strike. The operators brought in scabs,and the scabs joined the miners.
The Pinkertons were not a militia, they were a hired goon army.
-
Matewan was a John Sayles movie. I like his work.
He also did the Brother from Another Planet
and Eight Men Out.
-
The Pinkertons were hired as a goon squad to break up unions back in the 1920's. There is a film about it, Matewan, about the WV mining town of the same name.
The mining company cut wages and the miners went out on strike. The operators brought in scabs,and the scabs joined the miners.
The Pinkertons were not a militia, they were a hired goon army.
A hired goon squad doesn't qualify as militia?
What about an armed union?
-
I would think that a militia would have to be called by a person with the legal authority to do so.
Union goons and paid muscle would not qualify, i wouldn't expect.
-
You might need to be diplomatic in your definition of a militia , if you are amoung them.
Does the second admendment directly state the authorising power of militia?
-
Does the second admendment directly state the authorising power of militia?
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
Why no it doesn't. Do you think other amendments might handle the questions of powers not enumerated?
-
Yes, powers not claimed by the constitution remin with the states and with the people.
I have always assumed that the states would authorise the militia , each its own.
That was the usual system.
But I don't know why it would be unconstitutional to start militas otherwise .
I imagine that once your militia started breaking law RICO would apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act)
-
powers not claimed by the constitution remin with the states and with the people.
If it remains with the people and we have a working definition of who the people are then i would think that they could form informal alliances, as long as, they stay within legalities.
Would the million man march be a militia? or the tea party gathering at the washington monument? Are arms necessary to flex muscle?
or do they simply come into play whenever kindness fails (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz47SXpbYdw#).
-
We are getting past my depth , but this is interesting.
I think that the second admendment implys that arms are a key right and milita are a right also.
What would a militia without arms be?
Elks, or Moose?
Being "well ordered " and all, I think that a state or municipal sanction is usually a good idea.
In any case it would be important not to fall from a milita into being an organised crime.
-
No, complete sense. If one is being given orders by the Government, by definition they can't be defending the populace against that government. Again, that's the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights limited federal government. That being the whole idea behind the Bill of Rights. Resisting an overreaching federal government would be a logical use of a state militia, organized or not.
Your statement was nonsense.
Naaa.....the nonsense is the idea that the militia, as referred to in the 2nd amendment, could be a body of the Government. Hardly
-
In that case, they're no longer taking their orders from the Government, so local folks, such as sherriffs and the sort can definately be considered part of that 2nd amendment militia
Then I guess you are backing away from your previous position.
-
Not every town in those days would have a police force .
San Fransisco for example , got quite large and established while relying on a militia to keep the peace.
What exelence we take for granted in police forces is a recent development.
-
If the militia is necessary for a free state, then the militia has to be affiliated with the state in some manner. Otherwise, it is simply a shooting club at best and a goon squad at worst.
Being as this country has managed to get by without any "organized militia" since the Civil War, I think it is safe to say that it is NOT necessary. If the state has continued to be free, it has not been because of any militia.
This may have been true in 1780. It seems to have been true when the War of 1812 started. Since then, no, not so much. The Civil War was not a bona fide struggle to keep the country free: the South wanted the freedom to keep many people in slavery, and all under the control of a plantation elite. Some of those in the North wanted to free slaves in the South, but the leaders in the North wanted to retain economic control of an important source of raw materials from the South.
-
In that case, they're no longer taking their orders from the Government, so local folks, such as sherriffs and the sort can definately be considered part of that 2nd amendment militia
Then I guess you are backing away from your previous position.
Not since I made it painfully clear in that post you took the above sentence from, that if they're no longer taking their orders from the Government, they're no longer an arm of the Government ::)
-
Would you call a major diffrence between a posse called by a federal Marshal from one called by a sheriff elected by a county?
-
Government is Government, though I understand the effort to differentiate Fed from State/Local. I may be persuaded to consider them as potential organizers of a 2nd amendment militia, if my comments weren't being labeled as nonsense
-
http://cal-militia.com/ (http://cal-militia.com/)
http://kalwnews.org/audio/2010/05/10/california-militias-prepare-disaster_356274.html (http://kalwnews.org/audio/2010/05/10/california-militias-prepare-disaster_356274.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Committee_of_Vigilance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Committee_of_Vigilance)
http://www.militarymuseum.org/Chinatown.html (http://www.militarymuseum.org/Chinatown.html)
http://www.constitution.org/mil/ca/mil_usca.htm (http://www.constitution.org/mil/ca/mil_usca.htm)
Google search for militias keeps turning up a lot of Californians.
Is there something special in California causing this?
-
Is there something special in California causing this?
===========================================
California has more people. More hair stylists, more tanning booths, more nail salons and more militias. New Yprk is too urban and too cold and too wet much of the year to strut about in camo.
We have a lot of gun nut militias here in FL as well, driving around in jeeps they spray painted in ugly camo as well.
-
The fact the psuedo assault weapon Bushmaster, with its "high capacity magazine" wasn't used, has got to be burning a few britches. No wonder the MSM is keeping hush on this