In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
The founding fathers were wise enough to know that technology would advance...weapons would change and become more sophisticated and deadly. They also knew that the government would grow and acquire these weapons and have the potential to use them against the people.
It is my opinion that they meant for us (the people) to be able to posses the same small arms as the government. I personally do not need LAWs or RPGs or small crew served weapons. If if ever came down to that type of a fight against an oppressive government, we would take what we needed from the military units that were encountered and defeated...or we would learn to make our own version of them.
However...think about this. If our govt decides to oppress us even more and decides to unleash the military against us and we the people are doing a good job of handing them their *, you can rest assured that they will go to the UN and request military assistance from other countries (Germany, Russia, etc) who would be more than happy to put foreign troops on our soil to subjegate the true Americans.
Any firearm - A well "regulated" = supplied, militia.
We should be able to own any weapon currently used in our military - without restriction other than what the individual feels He/She can control given their physical abilities and storage capabilities. We are supposed to be free to make our own choices.
Other countries rules make no argument. There is no other country like America.
I assume by your use of the word "argument" that you can give proof as to what would happen if it actually was that way. I know that most politicians and Liberals believe that there will be "Bloodshed in the streets", but have no proof. We do have plenty of proof that there already exist individuals who own all kinds of weapons and train with them when possible.
Oh my god - where is the bloodshed and dead children everywhere - and gangsters/thieves brandishing them in the streets.
We should be allowed to own any damn thing we can afford to buy. If you can support a 16" cannon off a battle ship, then you should be able to own it. If you can afford an A-10 Warthog with a 20mmVulcan on board, then you should be able to own it. The foundation of this country was based on FREEDOM, and having a goverment that did not restrict the peoples freedoms, including the right to keep the goverment in check, using a well regulated militia of people, who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A lot of conclusions jumped to. I suppose this is a touchy subject for everyone here. I think some folks are over-reacting to Paleo, although I have not scrutinized every post on this thread.
To get back to his original question, in 1938 the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. v. Miller) observed that the language of the 2A makes it appropriate and reasonable for a U.S. Citizen to equip himself with arms comparable to what the U.S. Army has. I do not have the exact language of the Court's statement.
In my original post, I omitted one point about the colonists' sense of grievance with England that is extremely relevant to this sort of discussion today.
Much of the colonists' sense of having been wronged, and their rights trampled, was based on their concept of "natural rights" -- rights that simply were, in their collective opinion. The English Parliament argued, with complete legal correctness, that the vast majority of the "rights" claimed by the American colonists did not, in fact, exist in the "real world" of established law. This is true, and this is what makes this point relevant in our situation today: it was England's contention that the rights of no colonists were being violated, as England had not given its legislative blessing to the array of natural rights that were the bone of contention to the colonists. Even a number of English Parliamentarians had a serious problem with this attitude, but when push came to shove the official line of a majority of Parliament, and the king, was, "You have the rights we say you have, and those rights can be taken from you at our discretion, as either punishment for your impertinence or to benefit England as a whole. God save the King." If you miss the similarity to those who state that our freedom today is defined by the laws on the books, today, and that when "freedom" and "law" are at odds, freedom falls by the wayside -- you aren't paying attention.
We, of course -- speaking of our forefathers -- said, simply, "No." And today those who say "no" are written off as occupying the fringe of lunacy, or as radicals threatening the peace and prosperity of our fellow citizens. So were the founding fathers written off by many, many of their fellow colonists, prior to and during the Revolution.... But I have no doubt for my own part as to the company I prefer to keep, and it's not that of people whose end-all, be-all in terms of freedom (citing members of my own extended family, not individuals on this forum, okay?) is to be allowed to keep a marginal majority of their gross wages, and to spend any surplus from that net pay at the mall and on the day of their choosing. Give them that, they see no need to make waves. Hell, they have no desire to make waves.
I think I'll hold out for something better, thank you very much.
Since the 2nd does not specify any particular "arms" I have to assume the authors meant to protect any armament that could be carried and used by an individual. The last SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd (Miller, 1939) held that only guns useful to the military were protected. This is a faulty ruling, of course, but going by their
opinion all the "assault weapons" are exactly what the framers had in mind and we should be able to own M16s without restrictions.
Evolving technology should not affect the original intent of the Bill of Rights. Movies didn't exist in the 18th century yet they have 1st Amnd. protections. Should be the same with modern firearms.
Since this is clearly a thread about gun rights I am moving it to that forum.
....................................................................................................
Too old to live...too young to die...
quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute
I'd like to hear arguments for exactly what sort of gun (not to the degree of brands, though...only something like ".22 rimfire single shot rifles, .30 Centerfire SemiAuto rifles, double-barreled shotguns of 12G or smaller, .22 revolvers only, etc.") you believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to possess as a citizen.
I think that is a pertinent, salient question worth asking, because there is another side of the question, which you came up with next:
quote:You say there's no "restrictions" in the 2nd A. on the type of firearm. I say there's no declaration on the type of firearm. Lack of restrictions doesn't necessarily mean 'anything and everything goes'.
In other words, the 2nd A. does not 'guarantee' that we should be allowed to own any and all types of arms including types that the men who wrote the document could probably never have even imagined. You can read into the omissions all you like...but that's not a good legal basis on which to stand. if you look at it, the "right to bear arms" is still being debated on both ends. some confused idiots say we can't own any firearms at all, and on the other end we all still don't have a clear answer as to "just where does it end?"
let's address the first part. "can we own arms, and if so, of what kind". and note, "arms" is not limited to only firearms.
if you are going to write a law saying you can own guns, but want to make it clear that there are no restrictions, no limitations, no questions, no ifs-ands-or-buts, and you want to guarantee such a right and make it tamper proof, what's the best way to write it? make it unambiguous and very simple.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
if you want to oppress peoples' right to bear arms, how can you mess with that??
you can't do any of these, it's an infringement on your right to own them (i.e. to keep and bear them):
-you can't limit any make, model, style, color, caliber, magazine capacity, or any other capabilities. that would be an infringement.
-you can't license, qualify, preclude, exclude, or even write legislation specifically including any individual or group of people from ownership, that would be an infringement.
so to answer your "original" question (which went on to something else later on), we are allowed to own any kind of firearm.
when you next say "Lack of restrictions doesn't necessarily mean 'anything and everything goes'", I would say yes it does. lack of restrictions means exactly that. lack of restrictions. not what you want to write in.
the right shall not be infringed.
moving on to the latter part of the debate, "how much is too much"? what "arms" can we own, if the arms aren't restricted in any way? can you own a grenade launcher? a howitzer? a missile? that really is a good question.
we already established exactly how our right to bear arms is not to be infringed in any way. I think now we are asking what arms are protected by that right.
they didn't specify any particular class of arms.
obviously, firearms, knives, swords, clubs, etc. are arms.
well....
a grenade launcher is a type of armament. so is an RPG, a howitzer, and yes, a missile. so is a nuclear weapon. so is any kind of weapon of mass destruction. they are all arms.
now before you get your panties into a bunch, we aren't considering "what we want", we aren't trying to figure out what is allowable, or how we want the laws to be according to your ideas or mine or anybody else's, which is a good thing because of some of the idiots out there who want everything, as you will find, quite contrary to what you or me want. we're debating a particular law that has already been written down on paper.
as it says, yes, we are allowed to own grenade launchers, howitzers and missiles. no class of arms was specified, and those are indeed arms.
what's amazing is how in every other area of written laws we have, we are "supposed" to follow them to the letter. a word can make a difference. lawmakers wrangle over wordage. what they say is what they mean. if something is not specified, you don't have any specifications to follow! people following the law and lawyers agruing it in court take advantage of that every day, don't they??
yet we're supposed to think that if the law says "you have the right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed" then we're limited to only a particular class of arms, right? we can own knives, swords, clubs, etc, but some people would say, not guns? or saying that we are allowed to own guns too, surely there must be some higher class of arms that aren't allowed, right?
wrong. just as plainly and simply as they said "shall not be infringed". we can keep and bear arms. any arms. that's what the law says. that's my conclusion. if you have some counterpoints, speak up.
finally, ECC, I didn't read what else this guy has said ticks people off, but if it's simply because he thinks otherwise, why not show him how he's wrong instead of telling him to get lost.
quote:Originally posted by mongrel1776
In my original post, I omitted one point about the colonists' sense of grievance with England that is extremely relevant to this sort of discussion today.
Much of the colonists' sense of having been wronged, and their rights trampled, was based on their concept of "natural rights" -- rights that simply were, in their collective opinion. The English Parliament argued, with complete legal correctness, that the vast majority of the "rights" claimed by the American colonists did not, in fact, exist in the "real world" of established law. This is true, and this is what makes this point relevant in our situation today: it was England's contention that the rights of no colonists were being violated, as England had not given its legislative blessing to the array of natural rights that were the bone of contention to the colonists. Even a number of English Parliamentarians had a serious problem with this attitude, but when push came to shove the official line of a majority of Parliament, and the king, was, "You have the rights we say you have, and those rights can be taken from you at our discretion, as either punishment for your impertinence or to benefit England as a whole. God save the King." If you miss the similarity to those who state that our freedom today is defined by the laws on the books, today, and that when "freedom" and "law" are at odds, freedom falls by the wayside -- you aren't paying attention.
We, of course -- speaking of our forefathers -- said, simply, "No." And today those who say "no" are written off as occupying the fringe of lunacy, or as radicals threatening the peace and prosperity of our fellow citizens. So were the founding fathers written off by many, many of their fellow colonists, prior to and during the Revolution.... But I have no doubt for my own part as to the company I prefer to keep, and it's not that of people whose end-all, be-all in terms of freedom (citing members of my own extended family, not individuals on this forum, okay?) is to be allowed to keep a marginal majority of their gross wages, and to spend any surplus from that net pay at the mall and on the day of their choosing. Give them that, they see no need to make waves. Hell, they have no desire to make waves.
I think I'll hold out for something better, thank you very much.
This is the basic "Natural Law Theory" -vs- "Positivist Theory".
It is alive and well RIGHT NOW, in our government and within the populace.
This divide is THE deadly danger to the future of America as a Constitutional Republic and to its citizens holding absolute and basic individual rights.
America was clearly and unarguably founded under the "Natural Law" theory.
Mongrel is correct in that the Brits pretty much subscribed to a basic "Positivist" view of law, e.g. the law is whatever the government says it is. This "Positivist" view and form of governance by the Brits and the acceptance of it by a majority of the citizens of the Colonies (the Tories), ultimately led to the American Revolution.
There are currently many similarities to that time period, related to our government's subscription to an increasingly "positivist" view of what were absolutely and unarguably meant to be natural rights.
Some of these similarities are related to the fed being oppressive and overreaching. Others relate to the Fed taking unto itself powers and duties that were absolutely NEVER intended to be performed by, or authorized to government. Still others relate to a similar core of freedom loving citizens who clearly see that individual liberty is threatened.
Up until around the 1920's, America's Fed still mainly subscribed to the "Natural Law" theory. That has changed and has since done a 180.
Our government now takes a mainly "Positivist" view of things. Therein lays the root of the problem and therein lays the basis of the diametrically opposing views that are held by many Americans. This, while most "gov't loving" citizens don't even know why they are in opposition of views and outlooks with other, "freedom loving" Americans.
Anyone who understands the founding principals at all, would know the reasons how and why our oppressive government crept into being. Those in government knowingly and willfully ignore the founding principals of America, regardless of their motivations, whether socialist, simply power hungry, globalist, or other.
Many of our citizens are simply ignorant, stupid, or willfully disregard and reject the bedrock principals that America was founded on and meant to be governed by.
It is absolutely imperative that America maintain our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. We simply must bring about a return to these principals or we are lost, period.
And so.....here we are in modern America, at a crossroads that, once a path is chosen, will have absolute and lasting consequences, not only for the nation, but for the very lives and liberties of its citizens.
What do we do, subscribe to the "positivist" views of our current government and of those expressed by Mr. Paleobrute????
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
We should be allowed to own any damn thing we can afford to buy. If you can support a 16" cannon off a battle ship, then you should be able to own it. If you can afford an A-10 Warthog with a 20mmVulcan on board, then you should be able to own it. The foundation of this country was based on FREEDOM, and having a goverment that did not restrict the peoples freedoms, including the right to keep the goverment in check, using a well regulated militia of people, who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I completely disagree and find most of your statements to be absurd. For starters, when the Constitution and the 2nd Amen. were written, I don't think the founding fathers could have imagined a time -as we have now- where we (America) are simultaneously (1) the MOST POWERFUL nation in the world and as such, no other NATION really dares attack us (note I said "NATION"...that doesn't include lunatic fringe terrorists intent on getting their 72 virginal goats or whatever), yet
(2) beset by so many internal factions of our own citizenry who for one reason or another would like to destroy their own nation.
Do you really want cannons, anti-aircraft guns and the like to be available to any and every Tom Dick and Harry out there? Damned if I do. Yeah, we can all tell ourselves that if WE had those things, WE wouldn't misuse them. We'd only use them for "good" like getting rid of Tom Dick and Harry from Berkeley.
And you can carry on all the bravado and posturing you want about how you wouldn't mind if everybody had access to weapons with the ability to inflict massive numbers of casualties and indirect fire weapons and grenade launchers and all that blah blah blah because you'd come out on top. I've been in firefights (have you?) and the good guys don't always win. And that was downrange in the Republic of Squalidstan and I didn't have the wife and kids tagging along to worry about their safety and welfare. Do I really want the guy across the street who just moved here from Albuquerque where he lost his job because he got mad at his boss and started stalking that guy's family in mall parking lots along with his 2 weirdo teenaged sons and his alcoholic brother-in-law who hangs out over there all the time to be armed with M16's with M203 Grenade Launchers under the barrels? And a .50 BMG on their roof? Hell no. And I don't mind saying so. That doesn't make me a coward or less of a man for saying so.
There really is such as thing as "weapons of war" that the 'average citizen' doesn't have any legitimate use for on a daily basis. And no, I'm not advocating doing away with Title II/III weapons (but keep them restricted).
You know, I really don't even like the idea of the guy across the street who I think is a 'good person' having .50 BMG on his roof because if a gang of crazed Haitian drug fiends try to break in on him while he just happens to be sitting up there on the roof cleaning the thing he might light them up with that thing and meanwhile I'm the field of fire, I'm gonna suffer, too.
What do I think should be 'allowable' guns? Guns that the average citizen can learn to safely operate and which should be adequate to protect him from plausible, realistic threats. Pretty much what's already out there on the shelf. In fact, there's nothing for sale on this website or in Shotgun News or at any gun shows that I really have a problem with. Anybody here who truly thinks he needs a 30MM chaingun to shoot Cuban paratroopers out of the sky as they start landing in his backyard a la RED DAWN is way out there, in my opinion.
Back to my points (1) and (2) above. I think there is genuine validity to the argument that the founding fathers DID have more of a "militia" in mind when they drafted the 2nd Amendment. And by "militia" I mean -and I think they did, too- a ready force of TRAINED and CONTROLLED troopers. Not the old "every able-bodied man over the age of 16 is automatically a member of his state's militia" routine. As I explained 'so eloquently' in another post that is now missing (ahem), in the first few decades following the Rev. War, this nation's existence was very tenuous. We were still the lightweights, even on this continent. It was necessary to depend on MILITIA to supplement a very small and rather impotent Federal Army.
I believe THAT is what the founding fathers were talking about, for the most part. I don't believe if they could have envisioned the nation being as powerful as it is now, with state of the art weaponry and so forth, that they would have believed that every citizen's gun home should mirror the armament of the nation's army. The thing is that at the time the 2nd A. was written, there was comparatively very little difference in the typical civilian's weapon and that of the (government) armed forces. In fact, that was pretty much true right up to WWI until the advent of the machine gun. Machine guns pretty much made the big jump from military 'small arms' being significantly bigger/better/more than their civilian counterparts.
Thus I actually agree with many who say that the 2nd Amend. would not have been left as broad and as 'ambiguously worded' if the men who wrote it could have imagined the weaponry of today. Since they probably couldn't even imagine F16 Jets, how could they pen a law that would cover a Stinger Missile or something else capable of taking down a military jet?
That leads to my second point: there are simply too many factions and too many people in this country to allow everyone who can afford one (!) to own A-10 Warthogs with chainguns. That's just absurd. I'm not even going to write a rebuttal to that way of thinking other than to say it would not be a nation, it'd be a wild frontier akin to Afghanistan with dozens if not hundreds of little warlords running around.
______________________________________________________________________
I'll also take this time to 'request' that Nunn or some other 'senior moderator' or the website administrator take a moment to investigate what's going on with my 'disappearing posts'. I'm confident I know which moderator has been deleting several of my posts but I'll refrain from calling names at this point.
quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute
I'll also take this time to 'request' that Nunn or some other 'senior moderator' or the website administrator take a moment to investigate what's going on with my 'disappearing posts'. I'm confident I know which moderator has been deleting several of my posts but I'll refrain from calling names at this point.
Only 2 "moderators" can delete or move posts in General Discussion. Since ECC has been "participating" in these threads, I would rule him out as the one that has been deleting them. Since nunn is out of town this weekend, and "admin" hasn't put in an appearance, that only leaves ONE "mod" that can. Now which one was it that posted a
"gentle reminder?"
Rather than deleting a couple of posts (IF need be!!!) then locking the thread, thus leaving the "well thought out posts" the whole thread disappears. Or move a thread to a forum where there will be little, if any, discussion.
Sad to say, this is typical, for...... [V]
quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
We should be allowed to own any damn thing we can afford to buy. If you can support a 16" cannon off a battle ship, then you should be able to own it. If you can afford an A-10 Warthog with a 20mmVulcan on board, then you should be able to own it. The foundation of this country was based on FREEDOM, and having a goverment that did not restrict the peoples freedoms, including the right to keep the goverment in check, using a well regulated militia of people, who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I completely disagree and find most of your statements to be absurd. For starters, when the Constitution and the 2nd Amen. were written, I don't think the founding fathers could have imagined a time -as we have now- where we (America) are simultaneously (1) the MOST POWERFUL nation in the world and as such, no other NATION really dares attack us (note I said "NATION"...that doesn't include lunatic fringe terrorists intent on getting their 72 virginal goats or whatever), yet
(2) beset by so many internal factions of our own citizenry who for one reason or another would like to destroy their own nation.
Do you really want cannons, anti-aircraft guns and the like to be available to any and every Tom Dick and Harry out there? Damned if I do. Yeah, we can all tell ourselves that if WE had those things, WE wouldn't misuse them. We'd only use them for "good" like getting rid of Tom Dick and Harry from Berkeley.
And you can carry on all the bravado and posturing you want about how you wouldn't mind if everybody had access to weapons with the ability to inflict massive numbers of casualties and indirect fire weapons and grenade launchers and all that blah blah blah because you'd come out on top. I've been in firefights (have you?) and the good guys don't always win. And that was downrange in the Republic of Squalidstan and I didn't have the wife and kids tagging along to worry about their safety and welfare. Do I really want the guy across the street who just moved here from Albuquerque where he lost his job because he got mad at his boss and started stalking that guy's family in mall parking lots along with his 2 weirdo teenaged sons and his alcoholic brother-in-law who hangs out over there all the time to be armed with M16's with M203 Grenade Launchers under the barrels? And a .50 BMG on their roof? Hell no. And I don't mind saying so. That doesn't make me a coward or less of a man for saying so.
There really is such as thing as "weapons of war" that the 'average citizen' doesn't have any legitimate use for on a daily basis. And no, I'm not advocating doing away with Title II/III weapons (but keep them restricted).
You know, I really don't even like the idea of the guy across the street who I think is a 'good person' having .50 BMG on his roof because if a gang of crazed Haitian drug fiends try to break in on him while he just happens to be sitting up there on the roof cleaning the thing he might light them up with that thing and meanwhile I'm the field of fire, I'm gonna suffer, too.
What do I think should be 'allowable' guns? Guns that the average citizen can learn to safely operate and which should be adequate to protect him from plausible, realistic threats. Pretty much what's already out there on the shelf. In fact, there's nothing for sale on this website or in Shotgun News or at any gun shows that I really have a problem with. Anybody here who truly thinks he needs a 30MM chaingun to shoot Cuban paratroopers out of the sky as they start landing in his backyard a la RED DAWN is way out there, in my opinion.
Back to my points (1) and (2) above. I think there is genuine validity to the argument that the founding fathers DID have more of a "militia" in mind when they drafted the 2nd Amendment. And by "militia" I mean -and I think they did, too- a ready force of TRAINED and CONTROLLED troopers. Not the old "every able-bodied man over the age of 16 is automatically a member of his state's militia" routine. As I explained 'so eloquently' in another post that is now missing (ahem), in the first few decades following the Rev. War, this nation's existence was very tenuous. We were still the lightweights, even on this continent. It was necessary to depend on MILITIA to supplement a very small and rather impotent Federal Army.
I believe THAT is what the founding fathers were talking about, for the most part. I don't believe if they could have envisioned the nation being as powerful as it is now, with state of the art weaponry and so forth, that they would have believed that every citizen's gun home should mirror the armament of the nation's army. The thing is that at the time the 2nd A. was written, there was comparatively very little difference in the typical civilian's weapon and that of the (government) armed forces. In fact, that was pretty much true right up to WWI until the advent of the machine gun. Machine guns pretty much made the big jump from military 'small arms' being significantly bigger/better/more than their civilian counterparts.
Thus I actually agree with many who say that the 2nd Amend. would not have been left as broad and as 'ambiguously worded' if the men who wrote it could have imagined the weaponry of today. Since they probably couldn't even imagine F16 Jets, how could they pen a law that would cover a Stinger Missile or something else capable of taking down a military jet?
That leads to my second point: there are simply too many factions and too many people in this country to allow everyone who can afford one (!) to own A-10 Warthogs with chainguns. That's just absurd. I'm not even going to write a rebuttal to that way of thinking other than to say it would not be a nation, it'd be a wild frontier akin to Afghanistan with dozens if not hundreds of little warlords running around.
______________________________________________________________________
I'll also take this time to 'request' that Nunn or some other 'senior moderator' or the website administrator take a moment to investigate what's going on with my 'disappearing posts'. I'm confident I know which moderator has been deleting several of my posts but I'll refrain from calling names at this point.
My dear fellow,
They allow you to own and run your chain mouth, which was also a FREEDOM in the constitution. I should say that the forfathers had the experience to know what it felt like when the Brits tried to remove those freedoms of speech, religion, and every other thing they so desired, because of trying to disarm the general populace at the same time.
I shall also add, if you dare to look into societies such as Australia where most everything has been banned, the crime rate has grown exponentially. However, look into the counties here in the good ole USA where a law abiding citizen can own just about anything...or such that our government will allow...tell me about the crime rate there.
We have cars that do well over legal speed limits, and drunk drivers kill people with them...according to the CDC, exponentially more so than any firearm related accidents. Do they outlaw them, and term them as assualt vehicles? Do they ban the type of alcohol he had consumed? Nope, instead they slap them on the wrist, say go be a good boy and play nice.
90% of crimes committed with a firearm...do you have any idea what is plea bargained away first? Thats right...the fire arm charge. Ever think that it is because of bleeding heart do gooders like yourself, that think the whole world should be protected from themselves, these repeat felons either end up walking the street again, or being paid for the rest of their lives by us the tax payers? Why don't the Dan Rathers of the world show up at an execution chamber when it time for someone to pay for their crimes? Why don't they televise that? Did you everthink we should do away with the felons, and televise that, instead of portraying the gun, vehicle, baseball bat, knife, or fireplace utensile as the culprit? From being in the service, of all people you should know you can load any M-16, 50BMG, RPG, Vulcan, have the safety off, and it is not going to hurt or kill anyone, unless some idiot touches it.
You ask so many fascist questions, now answer some. Here is one more...If you wish to live in a 3rd world country, why don't you just move to one?
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute
I'll also take this time to 'request' that Nunn or some other 'senior moderator' or the website administrator take a moment to investigate what's going on with my 'disappearing posts'. I'm confident I know which moderator has been deleting several of my posts but I'll refrain from calling names at this point.
Only 2 "moderators" can delete or move posts in General Discussion. Since ECC has been "participating" in these threads, I would rule him out as the one that has been deleting them. Since nunn is out of town this weekend, and "admin" hasn't put in an appearance, that only leaves ONE "mod" that can. Now which one was it that posted a
"gentle reminder?"
Rather than deleting a couple of posts (IF need be!!!) then locking the thread, thus leaving the "well thought out posts" the whole thread disappears. Or move a thread to a forum where there will be little, if any, discussion.
Sad to say, this is typical, for...... [V]
Sad, but true pickenup.
There are indeed repeated instances of a series of excellent and informative posts being tossed out by.....someone...rather than locking the thread, or simply deleting offensive individual posts, thus allowing the overall information to stand and be available to read.
This one was smoking hot in GD and was garnering multiple hits and great discussion. Moving it here, effectively kills it for almost everyone who would benefit from participating and/or reading it.[:(!]
Realistically, yes, the argument for every man and his dog having the same weapons as the armed forces, up to and including nukes, is absurd -- but only speaking in terms of being realistic, not in principle. And, if it ever comes to one extreme or the other -- and I believe any concession in the matter of gun control will eventually lead to the extreme of no guns for no one, nowhere, nohow -- I want a tank. I will settle for WWII surplus, but I want a tank. And maybe a fully-loaded P-51 Mustang, though I realize that's an antiquated piece of equipment and outside the realm of a discussion about civilian ownership of modern military toys.
SERIOUSLY, and respectfully, Paleobrute, I believe you're mistaken in regard to the intent of the founding fathers. Too many of them defined "the militia" as the entire body of able-bodied citizens, and too many were outspokenly suspicious of even the idea of a standing, professional army of any sort. And, as stated, it was the avowed intention of Washington, Jefferson, et al, that we be guaranteed our right to both the idea and means of self-defense -- against our own government, if need be, which was an eventuality that they most certainly could foresee, regardless of what and how many changes to our country and world they couldn't.
I don't believe the spirit of their intent, or the reason for it, has changed. I understand and accept your concerns about misuse of military weaponry -- or any weapons, for that matter -- but that falls into the "freedom vs. security/safety" category, and I've stated my stand on the side of freedom. I realize that carries with it a multitude of very real, as well as potential dangers, but I accept that. You certainly have every right to feel differently.
I reject the argument that anti-gunners always make about unrestricted gun ownership leading to civilians owning nukes and missiles. We must remember that gun ownership, like all of our rights, are restricted only by their infringement upon other people's rights. Therefore a full-auto M-16 in your gun safe is hurting no one, but a nuclear warhead in your backyard is a totally different matter as it would require storage of toxic chemicals that could pollute your neighbors' water, air, etc. At that point you have moved into the realm of infringing upon other people's rights.
Does storing a box of hand grenades in your garage hurt anyone? Not if you store them in a safe manner. But if a grenade detonates due to your negligence and catches your neighbor's house on fire, then you are TOTALLY liable. Does this mean that hand grenades should be illegal because someone MIGHT store them improperly? Absolutely not, in fact this is the type of regulatory government we have today, the Nanny Government.
Instead of allowing our government to preemptively create laws and regulations that infringe upon all of our rights, why don't we go after the actual offenders and prosecute them to the fullest extent? I believe that would set the proper precedent while still valuing our rights as individuals.
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
My dear fellow,
They allow you to own and run your chain mouth, which was also a FREEDOM in the constitution. I should say that the forfathers had the experience to know what it felt like when the Brits tried to remove those freedoms of speech, religion, and every other thing they so desired, because of trying to disarm the general populace at the same time.
I shall also add, if you dare to look into societies such as Australia where most everything has been banned, the crime rate has grown exponentially. However, look into the counties here in the good ole USA where a law abiding citizen can own just about anything...or such that our government will allow...tell me about the crime rate there.
For starters, deep six the "Enlglish Lord Hoity Toity Talk" already. It just sounds...well...gay.
Next, you respond to a post I make in which I say that "No, I don't believe the average every citizen should have A-10 Wart Hog Combat Planes" by 'lecturing' me on the evils of a society where EVERY kind of gun (or virtually every kind of gun) is banned. There's not enough labels to put on that kind of stupid, nonsense comparison.
I explained very honestly and directly what sort of guns I think are reasonable for private ownership and obviously my ideas don't even begin to match up with the situation in Australia or the UK.
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
90% of crimes committed with a firearm...do you have any idea what is plea bargained away first? Thats right...the fire arm charge. Ever think that it is because of bleeding heart do gooders like yourself, that think the whole world should be protected from themselves, these repeat felons either end up walking the street again, or being paid for the rest of their lives by us the tax payers? Why don't the Dan Rathers of the world show up at an execution chamber when it time for someone to pay for their crimes? Why don't they televise that? Did you everthink we should do away with the felons, and televise that, instead of portraying the gun, vehicle, baseball bat, knife, or fireplace utensile as the culprit? From being in the service, of all people you should know you can load any M-16, 50BMG, RPG, Vulcan, have the safety off, and it is not going to hurt or kill anyone, unless some idiot touches it.
You ask so many fascist questions, now answer some. Here is one more...If you wish to live in a 3rd world country, why don't you just move to one?
I'm just going to come out and say it directly and bluntly: you're a liar, plain and simple. Making blatantly strawman arguments is a form of lying. If you want to debate -or even argue- then argue against what I actually said vs. screaming at a strawman that you built way out in left field and that you hung a sign on and said "THIS is Paleobrute". Strawman arguments are not only lying they're cowardly.
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
From being in the service, of all people you should know you can load any M-16, 50BMG, RPG, Vulcan, have the safety off, and it is not going to hurt or kill anyone, unless some idiot touches it.
From being in the service I know that even reasonably smart people frequently kill themselves or other people in weapons mishandling accidents and -in the case of long range heavy armaments (i.e. A-10 Warthogs, Tanks and what have you) kill friendlys due to miscommunication and misidentification. And that's by HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS who undergo routine and regular training and with all kinds of rules and oversight and monitoring and so forth. So when you spout off little soundbytes about "using a well regulated militia of people" I don't think you have any concept of what "well regulated" means. It doesn't mean any fool who might have the money should be allowed to own weapons such as .50 BMG without any sort of oversight or regulation. In fact, just the opposite: what sort of "well regulated" do you not understand?
The point is that you and whoever else want to treat the 2nd Amendment like your own personal little buffet, selecting certain tidbits and saying "THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE INTERPRETED VERBATIM!" but then go on to say "BUT THIS DOESN'T REALLY MEAN WHAT IT SAYS!", an example of the latter being how you all gloss over the words "well regulated" when you blather on about how everyone's in the "militia" to which the 2nd Amendment refers.
Actually, I think most of you who responded with that old "NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND!" B.S. actually don't really and truly mean that. You say that because you know that even we gun-owners are hard pressed to come to a common consensus on what is reasonable. About the only common denominator is that if we own it or would like to own it, we'll say it should be allowed. So rather than concede there should be any limitations and then try to defend your idea of what those limitations are, you resort to hollering about how the founding fathers would have really and truly wanted you to have an A-10 Warthog complete with anti-tank missiles and 30mm Gatling Gun.
Point of the matter is, that the right comes from the same Constitution that lets you run your mouth and run down people like doug Wilson(forgive me Doug), and act like the troll you are. It is the same constitution you were supposedly defending...remember the oath? The oath was to defend all of it, not part of it. The Constitution was designed to protect us from our own government, that previously gone corrupt. It is obvious that they(government) have washed what little brain you have into thinking they are the supreme power in this country...not the people who elect them.
The statistics I used are very real, and some of them even come from our own government of which you believe is so righteous. Look at Chicago, NYC, LA, and DC. They have some of the strongest gun control in the USA. The most crime to go with it. Whats wrong? You don't like your preaching podium being hijacked? You don't obviously like things being turned around coming back at you? You think your adolescent name calling will stop it? You don't want to believe that if they were to totally disarm you, they wouldn't take away your license to run your mouth? Enjoy it while you still can.
I heard that Hillary has a job opening for a campaign management posistion...you would fit right in.
May the new year bring you a brain, so you can think with yourself.
quote:Originally posted by mongrel1776
Realistically, yes, the argument for every man and his dog having the same weapons as the armed forces, up to and including nukes, is absurd -- but only speaking in terms of being realistic, not in principle. And, if it ever comes to one extreme or the other -- and I believe any concession in the matter of gun control will eventually lead to the extreme of no guns for no one, nowhere, nohow -- I want a tank. I will settle for WWII surplus, but I want a tank. And maybe a fully-loaded P-51 Mustang, though I realize that's an antiquated piece of equipment and outside the realm of a discussion about civilian ownership of modern military toys.
If you allow that owning NUKES by any individual is absurd then you've established you ARE for some sort of restriction. The question then is to what degree?
quote:Originally posted by mongrel1776SERIOUSLY, and respectfully, Paleobrute, I believe you're mistaken in regard to the intent of the founding fathers. Too many of them defined "the militia" as the entire body of able-bodied citizens, and too many were outspokenly suspicious of even the idea of a standing, professional army of any sort. And, as stated, it was the avowed intention of Washington, Jefferson, et al, that we be guaranteed our right to both the idea and means of self-defense -- against our own government, if need be, which was an eventuality that they most certainly could foresee, regardless of what and how many changes to our country and world they couldn't.
I don't believe the spirit of their intent, or the reason for it, has changed. I understand and accept your concerns about misuse of military weaponry -- or any weapons, for that matter -- but that falls into the "freedom vs. security/safety" category, and I've stated my stand on the side of freedom. I realize that carries with it a multitude of very real, as well as potential dangers, but I accept that. You certainly have every right to feel differently.
Not rehash everything that I've already said but again, the founding fathers could not have envisioned the sort of heavy armament -even the lethal 'small arms'- of today. And as I also pointed out in my post to tsr, the "well regulated" portion of the 2nd Amendment is too often glossed over by 'you guys'. (and by 'you guys' I simply mean you guys who are further out there on gun ownership than me).
You go on to explain that the founding fathers were leery of a standing army. Perhaps. A lot of it also simply had to do with the cost of maintaining a standing army. The nation was new and basically already bankrupt. The concept of a militia to deal with the threats of the day was the idea. That idea almost cost us dearly a few decades later in the War of 1812. Anyone well versed in military history will tell you that the only thing that saved our * at that time was that the European powers were too busy warring with one another. We were in the right place at the right time. Call it Manifest Destiny or whatever the but fact is that a lack of a strong standing army was a serious Achilles Heel.
Back to the militia: and a "well regulated militia" probably meant to the founding fathers the same thing it means to the Swiss today. They don't just hand out selective fire Assault Rifles to everyone and say "We'll call you if we need you." and then forget about it. I made a post that detailed some of the very rigid rules that govern the Swiss system after someone else made overmuch about the Swiss system. Regardless of whether you or any of the most recent posters espouse the Swiss (or not), the fact remains that an untrained and unregulated militia would not be successful against a smaller professional army as far as defeating an invasion force (since that seems to be the favored scenario so many of you sit around and fantasize about) with the means to put troops on the ground here in America- not if they were committed to sure 'nuff taking over America.
Now before you or whoever runs off about how "the Minutemen defeated the British!" the facts are that the Minutemen did NOT defeat the British. The Minutemen did cause the Brits a lot of problems...which resulted in more British troops being sent. Which resulted in America hiring General von Steuben to train the boys on how to drill and act as an effective fighting force. It was a professional Army of American federal troops with French support and supplemented by newly trained militia who finally made the Brits decide this place wasn't worth it. The militia men by that time were really more along the lines of Activated Reservists vs. just good old boys who were sitting around on the farm and said "Well, I reckon we'll go down over to Yorktown and slay some redcoats today."
To say that every one sitting around reading this forum right now is as much a militia member as the guys who defeated the Brits is simply untrue.
Now: take away the Army and who's going to train the boys today to be an effective militia? Who's going to FORCE the "militia" to move to another geographical area of the nation several hundred miles away to wage war?
We could go on and on but the bottom line is this: the "militia" envisioned by the founding fathers was at a time when the biggest threat was probably Indians on the frontier or relatively small raiding parts up from Spanish/British Florida or down from British Canada. In that context, a militia could be effective in protecting the nation or whatever state/region was being threatened. And the common 'household guns' weren't that much different than military issued arms so it was a good idea. There are few parallels today.
The statistics I used are very real, and some of them even come from our own government of which you believe is so righteous. Look at Chicago, NYC, LA, and DC. They have some of the strongest gun control in the USA. The most crime to go with it. Whats wrong? You don't like your preaching podium being hijacked? You don't obviously like things being turned around coming back at you? You think your adolescent name calling will stop it? You don't want to believe that if they were to totally disarm you, they wouldn't take away your license to run your mouth? Enjoy it while you still can.
I heard that Hillary has a job opening for a campaign management posistion...you would fit right in.
May the new year bring you a brain, so you can think with yourself.
Blah blah blah...once again and as usual, you're arguing against something I never said. I didn't dispute your 'statistics'. I didn't advocate "total disarmament". I didn't say I think the government is "righteous". I just don't think anyone and everyone should be allowed to own BMG .50 without some sort of regulation/oversight and I don't think wack jobs like you should be allowed to own that (much less an A-10 Warthog) at all.
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
You don't obviously like things being turned around coming back at you?
You haven't "turned around" anything back at me because you don't dispute what I actually said. Instead, you argue against things I never said. Your old 'I am rubber, you are glue, what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you' routine is what's really adolescent. Argue against what I actually said, not what you wish I'd said. See now, you've got this list of standard rhetoric that you pull out and sling around whenever someone doesn't agree you should have an A-10 Warthog Attack Plane. You don't really even know what all that rhetoric means, you just think it sounds cool. But when you sling it around indiscriminately and try to apply to things people said that don't match up with your standard scenarios, then you just wind up looking like a fool and running around screeching "You're a fascist! No wait, you're a Hillary Clinton campaign manager! No wait, you were mean to Doug! No wait..."
Once again, if you can't argue against what I actually said and instead you resort to strawman arguments, then you're a loser, coward and liar. It really is that simple. I can't tone that down any more without just giving you a free pass for being a looney tune.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
Well said, Mongrel.
I reject the argument that anti-gunners always make about unrestricted gun ownership leading to civilians owning nukes and missiles. We must remember that gun ownership, like all of our rights, are restricted only by their infringement upon other people's rights. Therefore a full-auto M-16 in your gun safe is hurting no one, but a nuclear warhead in your backyard is a totally different matter as it would require storage of toxic chemicals that could pollute your neighbors' water, air, etc. At that point you have moved into the realm of infringing upon other people's rights.
Does storing a box of hand grenades in your garage hurt anyone? Not if you store them in a safe manner. But if a grenade detonates due to your negligence and catches your neighbor's house on fire, then you are TOTALLY liable. Does this mean that hand grenades should be illegal because someone MIGHT store them improperly? Absolutely not, in fact this is the type of regulatory government we have today, the Nanny Government.
Instead of allowing our government to preemptively create laws and regulations that infringe upon all of our rights, why don't we go after the actual offenders and prosecute them to the fullest extent? I believe that would set the proper precedent while still valuing our rights as individuals.
-WoundedWolf
I used to reject that accusation by the anti-gun faction, too. But then along comes someone like tsr who says -and evidently really truly means it:
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
We should be allowed to own any damn thing we can afford to buy. If you can support a 16" cannon off a battle ship, then you should be able to own it. If you can afford an A-10 Warthog with a 20mmVulcan on board, then you should be able to own it. The foundation of this country was based on FREEDOM, and having a goverment that did not restrict the peoples freedoms, including the right to keep the goverment in check, using a well regulated militia of people, who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
My point is that I'M not the one who drug that into the fray.
As for your idea that we should be allowed to own and store hand grenades in our homes, that's absurd. The scnario you describe (about a hand grenade setting a neighbor's house on fire) stops far short of what the legitimate concern is: someone wacking out and tossing hand grenades around in malls, schools, churches, parking lots, etc. Hand grenades are not in any sense of the phrase a "defensive weapon".
The human right to keep and bear arms is not limited to defensive weapons.
quote:the legitimate concern is: someone wacking out and tossing hand grenades around in malls, schools, churches, parking lots, etc.
This is the classic gun grabber appeal, outlaw <insert object here> and we will all be safe. It hasn't worked, doesn't work, and will never work. The problem is not with the object, it is with the individual. Making laws to outlaw objects will never deal with the issues of the individual.
Deal with the individuals and leave the objects alone.
quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
The statistics I used are very real, and some of them even come from our own government of which you believe is so righteous. Look at Chicago, NYC, LA, and DC. They have some of the strongest gun control in the USA. The most crime to go with it. Whats wrong? You don't like your preaching podium being hijacked? You don't obviously like things being turned around coming back at you? You think your adolescent name calling will stop it? You don't want to believe that if they were to totally disarm you, they wouldn't take away your license to run your mouth? Enjoy it while you still can.
I heard that Hillary has a job opening for a campaign management posistion...you would fit right in.
May the new year bring you a brain, so you can think with yourself.
Blah blah blah...once again and as usual, you're arguing against something I never said. I didn't dispute your 'statistics'. I didn't advocate "total disarmament". I didn't say I think the government is "righteous". I just don't think anyone and everyone should be allowed to own BMG .50 without some sort of regulation/oversight and I don't think wack jobs like you should be allowed to own that (much less an A-10 Warthog) at all.
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
You don't obviously like things being turned around coming back at you?
You haven't "turned around" anything back at me because you don't dispute what I actually said. Instead, you argue against things I never said. Your old 'I am rubber, you are glue, what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you' routine is what's really adolescent. Argue against what I actually said, not what you wish I'd said. See now, you've got this list of standard rhetoric that you pull out and sling around whenever someone doesn't agree you should have an A-10 Warthog Attack Plane. You don't really even know what all that rhetoric means, you just think it sounds cool. But when you sling it around indiscriminately and try to apply to things people said that don't match up with your standard scenarios, then you just wind up looking like a fool and running around screeching "You're a fascist! No wait, you're a Hillary Clinton campaign manager! No wait, you were mean to Doug! No wait..."
Once again, if you can't argue against what I actually said and instead you resort to strawman arguments, then you're a loser, coward and liar. It really is that simple. I can't tone that down any more without just giving you a free pass for being a looney tune.
Point is, the founding fathers, weather or not they invisioned the "heavy armament we have today", meant the Constitution to protect our RIGHTS from a corrupt government. We should be able to use anything and everything the government has in its arsenal to do so. That is what those Doccuments signed by John Hanncock were established for. The only governments in the world who have ever accomplished total disarmament, did so by starting with just one of a certain type at a time. I do agree that every fruit cake should not have a NUKE, or A-10.
It would drive you more insane if you were to figure out that the most dangerous weapon in the world is the human mind, and that everyone has one, wouldn't it? Did you ever stop to figure out that most weapons systems in the world, and yes, even Nukes, and A-10's were developed by private citizens, and not governments? The Eugene Stoner's, John M. Brownings, and Kaliskinov's of the world were all enterprising individuals looking for better means. They all had their own mind.
Aboout those statistics...those are down right shames. Seems the governments were going to protect the people of which empowered them from themselves. I guess the bad guys, and thugs, just forgot it was the law they had to turn in their guns, huh?
About looney tune...I am not the one who had my brain washed. I answered your original question several times that I disagree with any restrictions our government puts on ownership. If we so choose to not own something, then it should be a decision by us the individual.
So, answer your own question...what do you think should be restricted? Should we restrict the human mind?
So, answer your own question...what do you think should be restricted? Should we restrict the human mind?
Go back and read my earlier posts. I already answered that. Evidently you were so busy drafting a carefully crafted shrill screech about how I'm going to be Hillary Clinton's new campaign manager that you didn't even bother to read what I posted.
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
The human right to keep and bear arms is not limited to defensive weapons.
quote:the legitimate concern is: someone wacking out and tossing hand grenades around in malls, schools, churches, parking lots, etc.
This is the classic gun grabber appeal, outlaw <insert object here> and we will all be safe. It hasn't worked, doesn't work, and will never work. The problem is not with the object, it is with the individual. Making laws to outlaw objects will never deal with the issues of the individual.
Deal with the individuals and leave the objects alone.
Yeah yeah, I know I know: we all NEED hand grenades because...because...oh yeah: one day our little fantasies about Cuban Paratroopers landing in our backywards a la RED DAWN will really happen and we need to be ready to throw hand grenades at them. [:o)]
You know, even if you truly believe that, you're still living in fantasy land if you think that's a 'winnable' stance. So by insisting on an outlandish proposal, you basically s**t in the bathwater for the people who want gun rights that -not only do we consider to be reasonable- are at least "winnable" because the anti-gun factions lump all us owners in with...um..."people like you".
[xx(]
Comments
The founding fathers were wise enough to know that technology would advance...weapons would change and become more sophisticated and deadly. They also knew that the government would grow and acquire these weapons and have the potential to use them against the people.
It is my opinion that they meant for us (the people) to be able to posses the same small arms as the government. I personally do not need LAWs or RPGs or small crew served weapons. If if ever came down to that type of a fight against an oppressive government, we would take what we needed from the military units that were encountered and defeated...or we would learn to make our own version of them.
However...think about this. If our govt decides to oppress us even more and decides to unleash the military against us and we the people are doing a good job of handing them their *, you can rest assured that they will go to the UN and request military assistance from other countries (Germany, Russia, etc) who would be more than happy to put foreign troops on our soil to subjegate the true Americans.
We should be able to own any weapon currently used in our military - without restriction other than what the individual feels He/She can control given their physical abilities and storage capabilities. We are supposed to be free to make our own choices.
Other countries rules make no argument. There is no other country like America.
I assume by your use of the word "argument" that you can give proof as to what would happen if it actually was that way. I know that most politicians and Liberals believe that there will be "Bloodshed in the streets", but have no proof. We do have plenty of proof that there already exist individuals who own all kinds of weapons and train with them when possible.
Oh my god - where is the bloodshed and dead children everywhere - and gangsters/thieves brandishing them in the streets.
To get back to his original question, in 1938 the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. v. Miller) observed that the language of the 2A makes it appropriate and reasonable for a U.S. Citizen to equip himself with arms comparable to what the U.S. Army has. I do not have the exact language of the Court's statement.
Much of the colonists' sense of having been wronged, and their rights trampled, was based on their concept of "natural rights" -- rights that simply were, in their collective opinion. The English Parliament argued, with complete legal correctness, that the vast majority of the "rights" claimed by the American colonists did not, in fact, exist in the "real world" of established law. This is true, and this is what makes this point relevant in our situation today: it was England's contention that the rights of no colonists were being violated, as England had not given its legislative blessing to the array of natural rights that were the bone of contention to the colonists. Even a number of English Parliamentarians had a serious problem with this attitude, but when push came to shove the official line of a majority of Parliament, and the king, was, "You have the rights we say you have, and those rights can be taken from you at our discretion, as either punishment for your impertinence or to benefit England as a whole. God save the King." If you miss the similarity to those who state that our freedom today is defined by the laws on the books, today, and that when "freedom" and "law" are at odds, freedom falls by the wayside -- you aren't paying attention.
We, of course -- speaking of our forefathers -- said, simply, "No." And today those who say "no" are written off as occupying the fringe of lunacy, or as radicals threatening the peace and prosperity of our fellow citizens. So were the founding fathers written off by many, many of their fellow colonists, prior to and during the Revolution.... But I have no doubt for my own part as to the company I prefer to keep, and it's not that of people whose end-all, be-all in terms of freedom (citing members of my own extended family, not individuals on this forum, okay?) is to be allowed to keep a marginal majority of their gross wages, and to spend any surplus from that net pay at the mall and on the day of their choosing. Give them that, they see no need to make waves. Hell, they have no desire to make waves.
I think I'll hold out for something better, thank you very much.
opinion all the "assault weapons" are exactly what the framers had in mind and we should be able to own M16s without restrictions.
Evolving technology should not affect the original intent of the Bill of Rights. Movies didn't exist in the 18th century yet they have 1st Amnd. protections. Should be the same with modern firearms.
Since this is clearly a thread about gun rights I am moving it to that forum.
Too old to live...too young to die...
I'd like to hear arguments for exactly what sort of gun (not to the degree of brands, though...only something like ".22 rimfire single shot rifles, .30 Centerfire SemiAuto rifles, double-barreled shotguns of 12G or smaller, .22 revolvers only, etc.") you believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to possess as a citizen.
I think that is a pertinent, salient question worth asking, because there is another side of the question, which you came up with next:
quote:You say there's no "restrictions" in the 2nd A. on the type of firearm. I say there's no declaration on the type of firearm. Lack of restrictions doesn't necessarily mean 'anything and everything goes'.
In other words, the 2nd A. does not 'guarantee' that we should be allowed to own any and all types of arms including types that the men who wrote the document could probably never have even imagined. You can read into the omissions all you like...but that's not a good legal basis on which to stand. if you look at it, the "right to bear arms" is still being debated on both ends. some confused idiots say we can't own any firearms at all, and on the other end we all still don't have a clear answer as to "just where does it end?"
let's address the first part. "can we own arms, and if so, of what kind". and note, "arms" is not limited to only firearms.
if you are going to write a law saying you can own guns, but want to make it clear that there are no restrictions, no limitations, no questions, no ifs-ands-or-buts, and you want to guarantee such a right and make it tamper proof, what's the best way to write it? make it unambiguous and very simple.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
if you want to oppress peoples' right to bear arms, how can you mess with that??
you can't do any of these, it's an infringement on your right to own them (i.e. to keep and bear them):
-you can't limit any make, model, style, color, caliber, magazine capacity, or any other capabilities. that would be an infringement.
-you can't license, qualify, preclude, exclude, or even write legislation specifically including any individual or group of people from ownership, that would be an infringement.
so to answer your "original" question (which went on to something else later on), we are allowed to own any kind of firearm.
when you next say "Lack of restrictions doesn't necessarily mean 'anything and everything goes'", I would say yes it does. lack of restrictions means exactly that. lack of restrictions. not what you want to write in.
the right shall not be infringed.
moving on to the latter part of the debate, "how much is too much"? what "arms" can we own, if the arms aren't restricted in any way? can you own a grenade launcher? a howitzer? a missile? that really is a good question.
we already established exactly how our right to bear arms is not to be infringed in any way. I think now we are asking what arms are protected by that right.
they didn't specify any particular class of arms.
obviously, firearms, knives, swords, clubs, etc. are arms.
well....
a grenade launcher is a type of armament. so is an RPG, a howitzer, and yes, a missile. so is a nuclear weapon. so is any kind of weapon of mass destruction. they are all arms.
now before you get your panties into a bunch, we aren't considering "what we want", we aren't trying to figure out what is allowable, or how we want the laws to be according to your ideas or mine or anybody else's, which is a good thing because of some of the idiots out there who want everything, as you will find, quite contrary to what you or me want. we're debating a particular law that has already been written down on paper.
as it says, yes, we are allowed to own grenade launchers, howitzers and missiles. no class of arms was specified, and those are indeed arms.
what's amazing is how in every other area of written laws we have, we are "supposed" to follow them to the letter. a word can make a difference. lawmakers wrangle over wordage. what they say is what they mean. if something is not specified, you don't have any specifications to follow! people following the law and lawyers agruing it in court take advantage of that every day, don't they??
yet we're supposed to think that if the law says "you have the right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed" then we're limited to only a particular class of arms, right? we can own knives, swords, clubs, etc, but some people would say, not guns? or saying that we are allowed to own guns too, surely there must be some higher class of arms that aren't allowed, right?
wrong. just as plainly and simply as they said "shall not be infringed". we can keep and bear arms. any arms. that's what the law says. that's my conclusion. if you have some counterpoints, speak up.
finally, ECC, I didn't read what else this guy has said ticks people off, but if it's simply because he thinks otherwise, why not show him how he's wrong instead of telling him to get lost.
In my original post, I omitted one point about the colonists' sense of grievance with England that is extremely relevant to this sort of discussion today.
Much of the colonists' sense of having been wronged, and their rights trampled, was based on their concept of "natural rights" -- rights that simply were, in their collective opinion. The English Parliament argued, with complete legal correctness, that the vast majority of the "rights" claimed by the American colonists did not, in fact, exist in the "real world" of established law. This is true, and this is what makes this point relevant in our situation today: it was England's contention that the rights of no colonists were being violated, as England had not given its legislative blessing to the array of natural rights that were the bone of contention to the colonists. Even a number of English Parliamentarians had a serious problem with this attitude, but when push came to shove the official line of a majority of Parliament, and the king, was, "You have the rights we say you have, and those rights can be taken from you at our discretion, as either punishment for your impertinence or to benefit England as a whole. God save the King." If you miss the similarity to those who state that our freedom today is defined by the laws on the books, today, and that when "freedom" and "law" are at odds, freedom falls by the wayside -- you aren't paying attention.
We, of course -- speaking of our forefathers -- said, simply, "No." And today those who say "no" are written off as occupying the fringe of lunacy, or as radicals threatening the peace and prosperity of our fellow citizens. So were the founding fathers written off by many, many of their fellow colonists, prior to and during the Revolution.... But I have no doubt for my own part as to the company I prefer to keep, and it's not that of people whose end-all, be-all in terms of freedom (citing members of my own extended family, not individuals on this forum, okay?) is to be allowed to keep a marginal majority of their gross wages, and to spend any surplus from that net pay at the mall and on the day of their choosing. Give them that, they see no need to make waves. Hell, they have no desire to make waves.
I think I'll hold out for something better, thank you very much.
This is the basic "Natural Law Theory" -vs- "Positivist Theory".
It is alive and well RIGHT NOW, in our government and within the populace.
This divide is THE deadly danger to the future of America as a Constitutional Republic and to its citizens holding absolute and basic individual rights.
America was clearly and unarguably founded under the "Natural Law" theory.
Mongrel is correct in that the Brits pretty much subscribed to a basic "Positivist" view of law, e.g. the law is whatever the government says it is. This "Positivist" view and form of governance by the Brits and the acceptance of it by a majority of the citizens of the Colonies (the Tories), ultimately led to the American Revolution.
There are currently many similarities to that time period, related to our government's subscription to an increasingly "positivist" view of what were absolutely and unarguably meant to be natural rights.
Some of these similarities are related to the fed being oppressive and overreaching. Others relate to the Fed taking unto itself powers and duties that were absolutely NEVER intended to be performed by, or authorized to government. Still others relate to a similar core of freedom loving citizens who clearly see that individual liberty is threatened.
Up until around the 1920's, America's Fed still mainly subscribed to the "Natural Law" theory. That has changed and has since done a 180.
Our government now takes a mainly "Positivist" view of things. Therein lays the root of the problem and therein lays the basis of the diametrically opposing views that are held by many Americans. This, while most "gov't loving" citizens don't even know why they are in opposition of views and outlooks with other, "freedom loving" Americans.
Anyone who understands the founding principals at all, would know the reasons how and why our oppressive government crept into being. Those in government knowingly and willfully ignore the founding principals of America, regardless of their motivations, whether socialist, simply power hungry, globalist, or other.
Many of our citizens are simply ignorant, stupid, or willfully disregard and reject the bedrock principals that America was founded on and meant to be governed by.
It is absolutely imperative that America maintain our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. We simply must bring about a return to these principals or we are lost, period.
And so.....here we are in modern America, at a crossroads that, once a path is chosen, will have absolute and lasting consequences, not only for the nation, but for the very lives and liberties of its citizens.
What do we do, subscribe to the "positivist" views of our current government and of those expressed by Mr. Paleobrute????
I for one, think not.
We should be allowed to own any damn thing we can afford to buy. If you can support a 16" cannon off a battle ship, then you should be able to own it. If you can afford an A-10 Warthog with a 20mmVulcan on board, then you should be able to own it. The foundation of this country was based on FREEDOM, and having a goverment that did not restrict the peoples freedoms, including the right to keep the goverment in check, using a well regulated militia of people, who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I completely disagree and find most of your statements to be absurd. For starters, when the Constitution and the 2nd Amen. were written, I don't think the founding fathers could have imagined a time -as we have now- where we (America) are simultaneously (1) the MOST POWERFUL nation in the world and as such, no other NATION really dares attack us (note I said "NATION"...that doesn't include lunatic fringe terrorists intent on getting their 72 virginal goats or whatever), yet
(2) beset by so many internal factions of our own citizenry who for one reason or another would like to destroy their own nation.
Do you really want cannons, anti-aircraft guns and the like to be available to any and every Tom Dick and Harry out there? Damned if I do. Yeah, we can all tell ourselves that if WE had those things, WE wouldn't misuse them. We'd only use them for "good" like getting rid of Tom Dick and Harry from Berkeley.
And you can carry on all the bravado and posturing you want about how you wouldn't mind if everybody had access to weapons with the ability to inflict massive numbers of casualties and indirect fire weapons and grenade launchers and all that blah blah blah because you'd come out on top. I've been in firefights (have you?) and the good guys don't always win. And that was downrange in the Republic of Squalidstan and I didn't have the wife and kids tagging along to worry about their safety and welfare. Do I really want the guy across the street who just moved here from Albuquerque where he lost his job because he got mad at his boss and started stalking that guy's family in mall parking lots along with his 2 weirdo teenaged sons and his alcoholic brother-in-law who hangs out over there all the time to be armed with M16's with M203 Grenade Launchers under the barrels? And a .50 BMG on their roof? Hell no. And I don't mind saying so. That doesn't make me a coward or less of a man for saying so.
There really is such as thing as "weapons of war" that the 'average citizen' doesn't have any legitimate use for on a daily basis. And no, I'm not advocating doing away with Title II/III weapons (but keep them restricted).
You know, I really don't even like the idea of the guy across the street who I think is a 'good person' having .50 BMG on his roof because if a gang of crazed Haitian drug fiends try to break in on him while he just happens to be sitting up there on the roof cleaning the thing he might light them up with that thing and meanwhile I'm the field of fire, I'm gonna suffer, too.
What do I think should be 'allowable' guns? Guns that the average citizen can learn to safely operate and which should be adequate to protect him from plausible, realistic threats. Pretty much what's already out there on the shelf. In fact, there's nothing for sale on this website or in Shotgun News or at any gun shows that I really have a problem with. Anybody here who truly thinks he needs a 30MM chaingun to shoot Cuban paratroopers out of the sky as they start landing in his backyard a la RED DAWN is way out there, in my opinion.
Back to my points (1) and (2) above. I think there is genuine validity to the argument that the founding fathers DID have more of a "militia" in mind when they drafted the 2nd Amendment. And by "militia" I mean -and I think they did, too- a ready force of TRAINED and CONTROLLED troopers. Not the old "every able-bodied man over the age of 16 is automatically a member of his state's militia" routine. As I explained 'so eloquently' in another post that is now missing (ahem), in the first few decades following the Rev. War, this nation's existence was very tenuous. We were still the lightweights, even on this continent. It was necessary to depend on MILITIA to supplement a very small and rather impotent Federal Army.
I believe THAT is what the founding fathers were talking about, for the most part. I don't believe if they could have envisioned the nation being as powerful as it is now, with state of the art weaponry and so forth, that they would have believed that every citizen's gun home should mirror the armament of the nation's army. The thing is that at the time the 2nd A. was written, there was comparatively very little difference in the typical civilian's weapon and that of the (government) armed forces. In fact, that was pretty much true right up to WWI until the advent of the machine gun. Machine guns pretty much made the big jump from military 'small arms' being significantly bigger/better/more than their civilian counterparts.
Thus I actually agree with many who say that the 2nd Amend. would not have been left as broad and as 'ambiguously worded' if the men who wrote it could have imagined the weaponry of today. Since they probably couldn't even imagine F16 Jets, how could they pen a law that would cover a Stinger Missile or something else capable of taking down a military jet?
That leads to my second point: there are simply too many factions and too many people in this country to allow everyone who can afford one (!) to own A-10 Warthogs with chainguns. That's just absurd. I'm not even going to write a rebuttal to that way of thinking other than to say it would not be a nation, it'd be a wild frontier akin to Afghanistan with dozens if not hundreds of little warlords running around.
______________________________________________________________________
I'll also take this time to 'request' that Nunn or some other 'senior moderator' or the website administrator take a moment to investigate what's going on with my 'disappearing posts'. I'm confident I know which moderator has been deleting several of my posts but I'll refrain from calling names at this point.
I'll also take this time to 'request' that Nunn or some other 'senior moderator' or the website administrator take a moment to investigate what's going on with my 'disappearing posts'. I'm confident I know which moderator has been deleting several of my posts but I'll refrain from calling names at this point.
Only 2 "moderators" can delete or move posts in General Discussion. Since ECC has been "participating" in these threads, I would rule him out as the one that has been deleting them. Since nunn is out of town this weekend, and "admin" hasn't put in an appearance, that only leaves ONE "mod" that can. Now which one was it that posted a
"gentle reminder?"
Rather than deleting a couple of posts (IF need be!!!) then locking the thread, thus leaving the "well thought out posts" the whole thread disappears. Or move a thread to a forum where there will be little, if any, discussion.
Sad to say, this is typical, for...... [V]
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
We should be allowed to own any damn thing we can afford to buy. If you can support a 16" cannon off a battle ship, then you should be able to own it. If you can afford an A-10 Warthog with a 20mmVulcan on board, then you should be able to own it. The foundation of this country was based on FREEDOM, and having a goverment that did not restrict the peoples freedoms, including the right to keep the goverment in check, using a well regulated militia of people, who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I completely disagree and find most of your statements to be absurd. For starters, when the Constitution and the 2nd Amen. were written, I don't think the founding fathers could have imagined a time -as we have now- where we (America) are simultaneously (1) the MOST POWERFUL nation in the world and as such, no other NATION really dares attack us (note I said "NATION"...that doesn't include lunatic fringe terrorists intent on getting their 72 virginal goats or whatever), yet
(2) beset by so many internal factions of our own citizenry who for one reason or another would like to destroy their own nation.
Do you really want cannons, anti-aircraft guns and the like to be available to any and every Tom Dick and Harry out there? Damned if I do. Yeah, we can all tell ourselves that if WE had those things, WE wouldn't misuse them. We'd only use them for "good" like getting rid of Tom Dick and Harry from Berkeley.
And you can carry on all the bravado and posturing you want about how you wouldn't mind if everybody had access to weapons with the ability to inflict massive numbers of casualties and indirect fire weapons and grenade launchers and all that blah blah blah because you'd come out on top. I've been in firefights (have you?) and the good guys don't always win. And that was downrange in the Republic of Squalidstan and I didn't have the wife and kids tagging along to worry about their safety and welfare. Do I really want the guy across the street who just moved here from Albuquerque where he lost his job because he got mad at his boss and started stalking that guy's family in mall parking lots along with his 2 weirdo teenaged sons and his alcoholic brother-in-law who hangs out over there all the time to be armed with M16's with M203 Grenade Launchers under the barrels? And a .50 BMG on their roof? Hell no. And I don't mind saying so. That doesn't make me a coward or less of a man for saying so.
There really is such as thing as "weapons of war" that the 'average citizen' doesn't have any legitimate use for on a daily basis. And no, I'm not advocating doing away with Title II/III weapons (but keep them restricted).
You know, I really don't even like the idea of the guy across the street who I think is a 'good person' having .50 BMG on his roof because if a gang of crazed Haitian drug fiends try to break in on him while he just happens to be sitting up there on the roof cleaning the thing he might light them up with that thing and meanwhile I'm the field of fire, I'm gonna suffer, too.
What do I think should be 'allowable' guns? Guns that the average citizen can learn to safely operate and which should be adequate to protect him from plausible, realistic threats. Pretty much what's already out there on the shelf. In fact, there's nothing for sale on this website or in Shotgun News or at any gun shows that I really have a problem with. Anybody here who truly thinks he needs a 30MM chaingun to shoot Cuban paratroopers out of the sky as they start landing in his backyard a la RED DAWN is way out there, in my opinion.
Back to my points (1) and (2) above. I think there is genuine validity to the argument that the founding fathers DID have more of a "militia" in mind when they drafted the 2nd Amendment. And by "militia" I mean -and I think they did, too- a ready force of TRAINED and CONTROLLED troopers. Not the old "every able-bodied man over the age of 16 is automatically a member of his state's militia" routine. As I explained 'so eloquently' in another post that is now missing (ahem), in the first few decades following the Rev. War, this nation's existence was very tenuous. We were still the lightweights, even on this continent. It was necessary to depend on MILITIA to supplement a very small and rather impotent Federal Army.
I believe THAT is what the founding fathers were talking about, for the most part. I don't believe if they could have envisioned the nation being as powerful as it is now, with state of the art weaponry and so forth, that they would have believed that every citizen's gun home should mirror the armament of the nation's army. The thing is that at the time the 2nd A. was written, there was comparatively very little difference in the typical civilian's weapon and that of the (government) armed forces. In fact, that was pretty much true right up to WWI until the advent of the machine gun. Machine guns pretty much made the big jump from military 'small arms' being significantly bigger/better/more than their civilian counterparts.
Thus I actually agree with many who say that the 2nd Amend. would not have been left as broad and as 'ambiguously worded' if the men who wrote it could have imagined the weaponry of today. Since they probably couldn't even imagine F16 Jets, how could they pen a law that would cover a Stinger Missile or something else capable of taking down a military jet?
That leads to my second point: there are simply too many factions and too many people in this country to allow everyone who can afford one (!) to own A-10 Warthogs with chainguns. That's just absurd. I'm not even going to write a rebuttal to that way of thinking other than to say it would not be a nation, it'd be a wild frontier akin to Afghanistan with dozens if not hundreds of little warlords running around.
______________________________________________________________________
I'll also take this time to 'request' that Nunn or some other 'senior moderator' or the website administrator take a moment to investigate what's going on with my 'disappearing posts'. I'm confident I know which moderator has been deleting several of my posts but I'll refrain from calling names at this point.
My dear fellow,
They allow you to own and run your chain mouth, which was also a FREEDOM in the constitution. I should say that the forfathers had the experience to know what it felt like when the Brits tried to remove those freedoms of speech, religion, and every other thing they so desired, because of trying to disarm the general populace at the same time.
I shall also add, if you dare to look into societies such as Australia where most everything has been banned, the crime rate has grown exponentially. However, look into the counties here in the good ole USA where a law abiding citizen can own just about anything...or such that our government will allow...tell me about the crime rate there.
We have cars that do well over legal speed limits, and drunk drivers kill people with them...according to the CDC, exponentially more so than any firearm related accidents. Do they outlaw them, and term them as assualt vehicles? Do they ban the type of alcohol he had consumed? Nope, instead they slap them on the wrist, say go be a good boy and play nice.
90% of crimes committed with a firearm...do you have any idea what is plea bargained away first? Thats right...the fire arm charge. Ever think that it is because of bleeding heart do gooders like yourself, that think the whole world should be protected from themselves, these repeat felons either end up walking the street again, or being paid for the rest of their lives by us the tax payers? Why don't the Dan Rathers of the world show up at an execution chamber when it time for someone to pay for their crimes? Why don't they televise that? Did you everthink we should do away with the felons, and televise that, instead of portraying the gun, vehicle, baseball bat, knife, or fireplace utensile as the culprit? From being in the service, of all people you should know you can load any M-16, 50BMG, RPG, Vulcan, have the safety off, and it is not going to hurt or kill anyone, unless some idiot touches it.
You ask so many fascist questions, now answer some. Here is one more...If you wish to live in a 3rd world country, why don't you just move to one?
quote:Originally posted by Paleobrute
I'll also take this time to 'request' that Nunn or some other 'senior moderator' or the website administrator take a moment to investigate what's going on with my 'disappearing posts'. I'm confident I know which moderator has been deleting several of my posts but I'll refrain from calling names at this point.
Only 2 "moderators" can delete or move posts in General Discussion. Since ECC has been "participating" in these threads, I would rule him out as the one that has been deleting them. Since nunn is out of town this weekend, and "admin" hasn't put in an appearance, that only leaves ONE "mod" that can. Now which one was it that posted a
"gentle reminder?"
Rather than deleting a couple of posts (IF need be!!!) then locking the thread, thus leaving the "well thought out posts" the whole thread disappears. Or move a thread to a forum where there will be little, if any, discussion.
Sad to say, this is typical, for...... [V]
Sad, but true pickenup.
There are indeed repeated instances of a series of excellent and informative posts being tossed out by.....someone...rather than locking the thread, or simply deleting offensive individual posts, thus allowing the overall information to stand and be available to read.
This one was smoking hot in GD and was garnering multiple hits and great discussion. Moving it here, effectively kills it for almost everyone who would benefit from participating and/or reading it.[:(!]
SERIOUSLY, and respectfully, Paleobrute, I believe you're mistaken in regard to the intent of the founding fathers. Too many of them defined "the militia" as the entire body of able-bodied citizens, and too many were outspokenly suspicious of even the idea of a standing, professional army of any sort. And, as stated, it was the avowed intention of Washington, Jefferson, et al, that we be guaranteed our right to both the idea and means of self-defense -- against our own government, if need be, which was an eventuality that they most certainly could foresee, regardless of what and how many changes to our country and world they couldn't.
I don't believe the spirit of their intent, or the reason for it, has changed. I understand and accept your concerns about misuse of military weaponry -- or any weapons, for that matter -- but that falls into the "freedom vs. security/safety" category, and I've stated my stand on the side of freedom. I realize that carries with it a multitude of very real, as well as potential dangers, but I accept that. You certainly have every right to feel differently.
I reject the argument that anti-gunners always make about unrestricted gun ownership leading to civilians owning nukes and missiles. We must remember that gun ownership, like all of our rights, are restricted only by their infringement upon other people's rights. Therefore a full-auto M-16 in your gun safe is hurting no one, but a nuclear warhead in your backyard is a totally different matter as it would require storage of toxic chemicals that could pollute your neighbors' water, air, etc. At that point you have moved into the realm of infringing upon other people's rights.
Does storing a box of hand grenades in your garage hurt anyone? Not if you store them in a safe manner. But if a grenade detonates due to your negligence and catches your neighbor's house on fire, then you are TOTALLY liable. Does this mean that hand grenades should be illegal because someone MIGHT store them improperly? Absolutely not, in fact this is the type of regulatory government we have today, the Nanny Government.
Instead of allowing our government to preemptively create laws and regulations that infringe upon all of our rights, why don't we go after the actual offenders and prosecute them to the fullest extent? I believe that would set the proper precedent while still valuing our rights as individuals.
-WoundedWolf
Stop feeding him and he'll go away...
My dear fellow,
They allow you to own and run your chain mouth, which was also a FREEDOM in the constitution. I should say that the forfathers had the experience to know what it felt like when the Brits tried to remove those freedoms of speech, religion, and every other thing they so desired, because of trying to disarm the general populace at the same time.
I shall also add, if you dare to look into societies such as Australia where most everything has been banned, the crime rate has grown exponentially. However, look into the counties here in the good ole USA where a law abiding citizen can own just about anything...or such that our government will allow...tell me about the crime rate there.
For starters, deep six the "Enlglish Lord Hoity Toity Talk" already. It just sounds...well...gay.
Next, you respond to a post I make in which I say that "No, I don't believe the average every citizen should have A-10 Wart Hog Combat Planes" by 'lecturing' me on the evils of a society where EVERY kind of gun (or virtually every kind of gun) is banned. There's not enough labels to put on that kind of stupid, nonsense comparison.
I explained very honestly and directly what sort of guns I think are reasonable for private ownership and obviously my ideas don't even begin to match up with the situation in Australia or the UK.
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
90% of crimes committed with a firearm...do you have any idea what is plea bargained away first? Thats right...the fire arm charge. Ever think that it is because of bleeding heart do gooders like yourself, that think the whole world should be protected from themselves, these repeat felons either end up walking the street again, or being paid for the rest of their lives by us the tax payers? Why don't the Dan Rathers of the world show up at an execution chamber when it time for someone to pay for their crimes? Why don't they televise that? Did you everthink we should do away with the felons, and televise that, instead of portraying the gun, vehicle, baseball bat, knife, or fireplace utensile as the culprit? From being in the service, of all people you should know you can load any M-16, 50BMG, RPG, Vulcan, have the safety off, and it is not going to hurt or kill anyone, unless some idiot touches it.
You ask so many fascist questions, now answer some. Here is one more...If you wish to live in a 3rd world country, why don't you just move to one?
I'm just going to come out and say it directly and bluntly: you're a liar, plain and simple. Making blatantly strawman arguments is a form of lying. If you want to debate -or even argue- then argue against what I actually said vs. screaming at a strawman that you built way out in left field and that you hung a sign on and said "THIS is Paleobrute". Strawman arguments are not only lying they're cowardly.
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
From being in the service, of all people you should know you can load any M-16, 50BMG, RPG, Vulcan, have the safety off, and it is not going to hurt or kill anyone, unless some idiot touches it.
From being in the service I know that even reasonably smart people frequently kill themselves or other people in weapons mishandling accidents and -in the case of long range heavy armaments (i.e. A-10 Warthogs, Tanks and what have you) kill friendlys due to miscommunication and misidentification. And that's by HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS who undergo routine and regular training and with all kinds of rules and oversight and monitoring and so forth. So when you spout off little soundbytes about "using a well regulated militia of people" I don't think you have any concept of what "well regulated" means. It doesn't mean any fool who might have the money should be allowed to own weapons such as .50 BMG without any sort of oversight or regulation. In fact, just the opposite: what sort of "well regulated" do you not understand?
The point is that you and whoever else want to treat the 2nd Amendment like your own personal little buffet, selecting certain tidbits and saying "THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE INTERPRETED VERBATIM!" but then go on to say "BUT THIS DOESN'T REALLY MEAN WHAT IT SAYS!", an example of the latter being how you all gloss over the words "well regulated" when you blather on about how everyone's in the "militia" to which the 2nd Amendment refers.
Actually, I think most of you who responded with that old "NO RESTRICTIONS OF ANY KIND!" B.S. actually don't really and truly mean that. You say that because you know that even we gun-owners are hard pressed to come to a common consensus on what is reasonable. About the only common denominator is that if we own it or would like to own it, we'll say it should be allowed. So rather than concede there should be any limitations and then try to defend your idea of what those limitations are, you resort to hollering about how the founding fathers would have really and truly wanted you to have an A-10 Warthog complete with anti-tank missiles and 30mm Gatling Gun.
That doesn't pass anyone's commonsense test.
The statistics I used are very real, and some of them even come from our own government of which you believe is so righteous. Look at Chicago, NYC, LA, and DC. They have some of the strongest gun control in the USA. The most crime to go with it. Whats wrong? You don't like your preaching podium being hijacked? You don't obviously like things being turned around coming back at you? You think your adolescent name calling will stop it? You don't want to believe that if they were to totally disarm you, they wouldn't take away your license to run your mouth? Enjoy it while you still can.
I heard that Hillary has a job opening for a campaign management posistion...you would fit right in.
May the new year bring you a brain, so you can think with yourself.
Realistically, yes, the argument for every man and his dog having the same weapons as the armed forces, up to and including nukes, is absurd -- but only speaking in terms of being realistic, not in principle. And, if it ever comes to one extreme or the other -- and I believe any concession in the matter of gun control will eventually lead to the extreme of no guns for no one, nowhere, nohow -- I want a tank. I will settle for WWII surplus, but I want a tank. And maybe a fully-loaded P-51 Mustang, though I realize that's an antiquated piece of equipment and outside the realm of a discussion about civilian ownership of modern military toys.
If you allow that owning NUKES by any individual is absurd then you've established you ARE for some sort of restriction. The question then is to what degree?
quote:Originally posted by mongrel1776SERIOUSLY, and respectfully, Paleobrute, I believe you're mistaken in regard to the intent of the founding fathers. Too many of them defined "the militia" as the entire body of able-bodied citizens, and too many were outspokenly suspicious of even the idea of a standing, professional army of any sort. And, as stated, it was the avowed intention of Washington, Jefferson, et al, that we be guaranteed our right to both the idea and means of self-defense -- against our own government, if need be, which was an eventuality that they most certainly could foresee, regardless of what and how many changes to our country and world they couldn't.
I don't believe the spirit of their intent, or the reason for it, has changed. I understand and accept your concerns about misuse of military weaponry -- or any weapons, for that matter -- but that falls into the "freedom vs. security/safety" category, and I've stated my stand on the side of freedom. I realize that carries with it a multitude of very real, as well as potential dangers, but I accept that. You certainly have every right to feel differently.
Not rehash everything that I've already said but again, the founding fathers could not have envisioned the sort of heavy armament -even the lethal 'small arms'- of today. And as I also pointed out in my post to tsr, the "well regulated" portion of the 2nd Amendment is too often glossed over by 'you guys'. (and by 'you guys' I simply mean you guys who are further out there on gun ownership than me).
You go on to explain that the founding fathers were leery of a standing army. Perhaps. A lot of it also simply had to do with the cost of maintaining a standing army. The nation was new and basically already bankrupt. The concept of a militia to deal with the threats of the day was the idea. That idea almost cost us dearly a few decades later in the War of 1812. Anyone well versed in military history will tell you that the only thing that saved our * at that time was that the European powers were too busy warring with one another. We were in the right place at the right time. Call it Manifest Destiny or whatever the but fact is that a lack of a strong standing army was a serious Achilles Heel.
Back to the militia: and a "well regulated militia" probably meant to the founding fathers the same thing it means to the Swiss today. They don't just hand out selective fire Assault Rifles to everyone and say "We'll call you if we need you." and then forget about it. I made a post that detailed some of the very rigid rules that govern the Swiss system after someone else made overmuch about the Swiss system. Regardless of whether you or any of the most recent posters espouse the Swiss (or not), the fact remains that an untrained and unregulated militia would not be successful against a smaller professional army as far as defeating an invasion force (since that seems to be the favored scenario so many of you sit around and fantasize about) with the means to put troops on the ground here in America- not if they were committed to sure 'nuff taking over America.
Now before you or whoever runs off about how "the Minutemen defeated the British!" the facts are that the Minutemen did NOT defeat the British. The Minutemen did cause the Brits a lot of problems...which resulted in more British troops being sent. Which resulted in America hiring General von Steuben to train the boys on how to drill and act as an effective fighting force. It was a professional Army of American federal troops with French support and supplemented by newly trained militia who finally made the Brits decide this place wasn't worth it. The militia men by that time were really more along the lines of Activated Reservists vs. just good old boys who were sitting around on the farm and said "Well, I reckon we'll go down over to Yorktown and slay some redcoats today."
To say that every one sitting around reading this forum right now is as much a militia member as the guys who defeated the Brits is simply untrue.
Now: take away the Army and who's going to train the boys today to be an effective militia? Who's going to FORCE the "militia" to move to another geographical area of the nation several hundred miles away to wage war?
We could go on and on but the bottom line is this: the "militia" envisioned by the founding fathers was at a time when the biggest threat was probably Indians on the frontier or relatively small raiding parts up from Spanish/British Florida or down from British Canada. In that context, a militia could be effective in protecting the nation or whatever state/region was being threatened. And the common 'household guns' weren't that much different than military issued arms so it was a good idea. There are few parallels today.
The statistics I used are very real, and some of them even come from our own government of which you believe is so righteous. Look at Chicago, NYC, LA, and DC. They have some of the strongest gun control in the USA. The most crime to go with it. Whats wrong? You don't like your preaching podium being hijacked? You don't obviously like things being turned around coming back at you? You think your adolescent name calling will stop it? You don't want to believe that if they were to totally disarm you, they wouldn't take away your license to run your mouth? Enjoy it while you still can.
I heard that Hillary has a job opening for a campaign management posistion...you would fit right in.
May the new year bring you a brain, so you can think with yourself.
Blah blah blah...once again and as usual, you're arguing against something I never said. I didn't dispute your 'statistics'. I didn't advocate "total disarmament". I didn't say I think the government is "righteous". I just don't think anyone and everyone should be allowed to own BMG .50 without some sort of regulation/oversight and I don't think wack jobs like you should be allowed to own that (much less an A-10 Warthog) at all.
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
You don't obviously like things being turned around coming back at you?
You haven't "turned around" anything back at me because you don't dispute what I actually said. Instead, you argue against things I never said. Your old 'I am rubber, you are glue, what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you' routine is what's really adolescent. Argue against what I actually said, not what you wish I'd said. See now, you've got this list of standard rhetoric that you pull out and sling around whenever someone doesn't agree you should have an A-10 Warthog Attack Plane. You don't really even know what all that rhetoric means, you just think it sounds cool. But when you sling it around indiscriminately and try to apply to things people said that don't match up with your standard scenarios, then you just wind up looking like a fool and running around screeching "You're a fascist! No wait, you're a Hillary Clinton campaign manager! No wait, you were mean to Doug! No wait..."
Once again, if you can't argue against what I actually said and instead you resort to strawman arguments, then you're a loser, coward and liar. It really is that simple. I can't tone that down any more without just giving you a free pass for being a looney tune.
Well said, Mongrel.
I reject the argument that anti-gunners always make about unrestricted gun ownership leading to civilians owning nukes and missiles. We must remember that gun ownership, like all of our rights, are restricted only by their infringement upon other people's rights. Therefore a full-auto M-16 in your gun safe is hurting no one, but a nuclear warhead in your backyard is a totally different matter as it would require storage of toxic chemicals that could pollute your neighbors' water, air, etc. At that point you have moved into the realm of infringing upon other people's rights.
Does storing a box of hand grenades in your garage hurt anyone? Not if you store them in a safe manner. But if a grenade detonates due to your negligence and catches your neighbor's house on fire, then you are TOTALLY liable. Does this mean that hand grenades should be illegal because someone MIGHT store them improperly? Absolutely not, in fact this is the type of regulatory government we have today, the Nanny Government.
Instead of allowing our government to preemptively create laws and regulations that infringe upon all of our rights, why don't we go after the actual offenders and prosecute them to the fullest extent? I believe that would set the proper precedent while still valuing our rights as individuals.
-WoundedWolf
I used to reject that accusation by the anti-gun faction, too. But then along comes someone like tsr who says -and evidently really truly means it:
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
We should be allowed to own any damn thing we can afford to buy. If you can support a 16" cannon off a battle ship, then you should be able to own it. If you can afford an A-10 Warthog with a 20mmVulcan on board, then you should be able to own it. The foundation of this country was based on FREEDOM, and having a goverment that did not restrict the peoples freedoms, including the right to keep the goverment in check, using a well regulated militia of people, who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
My point is that I'M not the one who drug that into the fray.
As for your idea that we should be allowed to own and store hand grenades in our homes, that's absurd. The scnario you describe (about a hand grenade setting a neighbor's house on fire) stops far short of what the legitimate concern is: someone wacking out and tossing hand grenades around in malls, schools, churches, parking lots, etc. Hand grenades are not in any sense of the phrase a "defensive weapon".
quote:the legitimate concern is: someone wacking out and tossing hand grenades around in malls, schools, churches, parking lots, etc.
This is the classic gun grabber appeal, outlaw <insert object here> and we will all be safe. It hasn't worked, doesn't work, and will never work. The problem is not with the object, it is with the individual. Making laws to outlaw objects will never deal with the issues of the individual.
Deal with the individuals and leave the objects alone.
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
The statistics I used are very real, and some of them even come from our own government of which you believe is so righteous. Look at Chicago, NYC, LA, and DC. They have some of the strongest gun control in the USA. The most crime to go with it. Whats wrong? You don't like your preaching podium being hijacked? You don't obviously like things being turned around coming back at you? You think your adolescent name calling will stop it? You don't want to believe that if they were to totally disarm you, they wouldn't take away your license to run your mouth? Enjoy it while you still can.
I heard that Hillary has a job opening for a campaign management posistion...you would fit right in.
May the new year bring you a brain, so you can think with yourself.
Blah blah blah...once again and as usual, you're arguing against something I never said. I didn't dispute your 'statistics'. I didn't advocate "total disarmament". I didn't say I think the government is "righteous". I just don't think anyone and everyone should be allowed to own BMG .50 without some sort of regulation/oversight and I don't think wack jobs like you should be allowed to own that (much less an A-10 Warthog) at all.
quote:Originally posted by tsr1965
You don't obviously like things being turned around coming back at you?
You haven't "turned around" anything back at me because you don't dispute what I actually said. Instead, you argue against things I never said. Your old 'I am rubber, you are glue, what you say bounces off of me and sticks to you' routine is what's really adolescent. Argue against what I actually said, not what you wish I'd said. See now, you've got this list of standard rhetoric that you pull out and sling around whenever someone doesn't agree you should have an A-10 Warthog Attack Plane. You don't really even know what all that rhetoric means, you just think it sounds cool. But when you sling it around indiscriminately and try to apply to things people said that don't match up with your standard scenarios, then you just wind up looking like a fool and running around screeching "You're a fascist! No wait, you're a Hillary Clinton campaign manager! No wait, you were mean to Doug! No wait..."
Once again, if you can't argue against what I actually said and instead you resort to strawman arguments, then you're a loser, coward and liar. It really is that simple. I can't tone that down any more without just giving you a free pass for being a looney tune.
Point is, the founding fathers, weather or not they invisioned the "heavy armament we have today", meant the Constitution to protect our RIGHTS from a corrupt government. We should be able to use anything and everything the government has in its arsenal to do so. That is what those Doccuments signed by John Hanncock were established for. The only governments in the world who have ever accomplished total disarmament, did so by starting with just one of a certain type at a time. I do agree that every fruit cake should not have a NUKE, or A-10.
It would drive you more insane if you were to figure out that the most dangerous weapon in the world is the human mind, and that everyone has one, wouldn't it? Did you ever stop to figure out that most weapons systems in the world, and yes, even Nukes, and A-10's were developed by private citizens, and not governments? The Eugene Stoner's, John M. Brownings, and Kaliskinov's of the world were all enterprising individuals looking for better means. They all had their own mind.
Aboout those statistics...those are down right shames. Seems the governments were going to protect the people of which empowered them from themselves. I guess the bad guys, and thugs, just forgot it was the law they had to turn in their guns, huh?
About looney tune...I am not the one who had my brain washed. I answered your original question several times that I disagree with any restrictions our government puts on ownership. If we so choose to not own something, then it should be a decision by us the individual.
So, answer your own question...what do you think should be restricted? Should we restrict the human mind?
So, answer your own question...what do you think should be restricted? Should we restrict the human mind?
Go back and read my earlier posts. I already answered that. Evidently you were so busy drafting a carefully crafted shrill screech about how I'm going to be Hillary Clinton's new campaign manager that you didn't even bother to read what I posted.
The human right to keep and bear arms is not limited to defensive weapons.
quote:the legitimate concern is: someone wacking out and tossing hand grenades around in malls, schools, churches, parking lots, etc.
This is the classic gun grabber appeal, outlaw <insert object here> and we will all be safe. It hasn't worked, doesn't work, and will never work. The problem is not with the object, it is with the individual. Making laws to outlaw objects will never deal with the issues of the individual.
Deal with the individuals and leave the objects alone.
Yeah yeah, I know I know: we all NEED hand grenades because...because...oh yeah: one day our little fantasies about Cuban Paratroopers landing in our backywards a la RED DAWN will really happen and we need to be ready to throw hand grenades at them. [:o)]
You know, even if you truly believe that, you're still living in fantasy land if you think that's a 'winnable' stance. So by insisting on an outlandish proposal, you basically s**t in the bathwater for the people who want gun rights that -not only do we consider to be reasonable- are at least "winnable" because the anti-gun factions lump all us owners in with...um..."people like you".
[xx(]
Mind if I ask if you are a member of the NRA ? And one futher...what part do you play in the organization, if so ?
I will not delete, but this thread is locked.