quote:Originally posted by mnotr2: I think the basic point gets lost in all the furor of both sides of this issue. I'd like to simply note the following:
quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The key words being well regulated and militia. The gun ownership is not an absolute right, and may be regulated by that State, and it is not for the personal convenience or even protection of individual citizens, but a collective right of the State to call upon the citizenry to defend it in arms.
-------------------- "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch Posts: 3307 | From: Charleston, WV | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mnotr2: I think the basic point gets lost in all the furor of both sides of this issue. I'd like to simply note the following:
quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The key words being well regulated and militia. The gun ownership is not an absolute right, and may be regulated by that State, and it is not for the personal convenience or even protection of individual citizens, but a collective right of the State to call upon the citizenry to defend it in arms.
Go back and read my posts again. You are working from the wrong definition of "well regulated."
Keep in mind also that it is well-established that the writers of the constitution considered the "militia" to be pretty much everybody who could pick up a gun and use it.
You might also note that Article III Section 22 of your own State Constitution (West Virginia) states that "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use."
The actual "key words" are "the right of the people" and "shall not be infringed."
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elkhound: The key words being well regulated and militia. The gun ownership is not an absolute right, and may be regulated by that State, and it is not for the personal convenience or even protection of individual citizens, but a collective right of the State to call upon the citizenry to defend it in arms.
I don't think "well regulated" means "controlled or limited by laws", but rather "adhering to specifications" or "adjusted for accurate or proper function". Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 29 (Federalist 22 through 29 cover the necessary military powers of government):
quote:To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance on the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would far short of the whole expence of the civil establishment of all the States.
According to Hamilton, a militia earns the "character of a well regulated militia" by frequent drilling. There is no worktime loss by laws governing gun ownership but by time taken off to drill or otherwise train as a militia.
Near the beginning of the article, Hamilton writes,
quote:that the plan of the Convention proposes to empower the union "to provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
-------------------- All posts foretold by Nostradamus.
Turing test failures: 6 Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The key words being well regulated and militia. The gun ownership is not an absolute right, and may be regulated by that State, and it is not for the personal convenience or even protection of individual citizens, but a collective right of the State to call upon the citizenry to defend it in arms.
Then why would they say the right of the people? Becuase everywhere that they talk about a power of the state or government, they say state or government, and in the other amendments protecting individual rights they say people or person (ie. 1st amendment) but your telling me that this one time when they really meant it was a right of the state they said people just for the fun of it?
I also think that the government or state doesn't have "rights" They have power and authority but rights are something iherently meant for individuals or people.
And also what First and Jason said.
-------------------- I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. -- On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs by LTC. Dave Grossman, USA (Ret) Posts: 675 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elkhound: The key words being well regulated and militia. The gun ownership is not an absolute right, and may be regulated by that State, and it is not for the personal convenience or even protection of individual citizens, but a collective right of the State to call upon the citizenry to defend it in arms.
I don't think "well regulated" means "controlled or limited by laws", but rather "adhering to specifications" or "adjusted for accurate or proper function". Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 29 (Federalist 22 through 29 cover the necessary military powers of government)
The militia being referred to is what is now the National Guard of the various states. To examine this point, look at Article II of the Constitution and what it says about the President's powers regarding this area.
The Second Amendment did come up during the fit of incorporation cases that occurred before the Supreme Court in the 1920s and 30s. In Miller v. United States, in a nutshell, the Court ruled that the Second Amenedment merely precluded the federal government from enforcing most individual and militia gun-control measures, and that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states at all. Being that the Court has refused to revisit this issue, it can be assumed that the Second Amendment cannot be held to the states and that individual states can, more or less, have unlimited latitude in enacting gun control.
-------------------- "Who needs the Bible? I've got this magic 8-ball." Posts: 354 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Southern Air Pirate
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Actually in the US Code, Chapter 10 subtitle E part I chapter 1011 section 10503, the US National Guard is defined as a Federal institution since they are federal reserve troops granted by Congress for the states to maintain as a common defense and when they are actived by the federal government they fill in as reserve componets of the active federal troops(the US Army, US Air Force, etc). This is different from the regulated militia as defined by the framers of the constituion. This is also cited as part of the decision in US v Miller in 1939.
quote: THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER "TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING, THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH FORCES THE DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE. IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW.
THE MILITIA WHICH THE STATES WERE EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN AND TRAIN IS SET IN CONTRAST WITH TROOPS WHICH THEY WERE FORBIDDEN TO KEEP WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS. THE SENTIMENT OF THE TIME STRONGLY DISFAVORED STANDING ARMIES; THE COMMON VIEW WAS THAT ADEQUATE DEFENSE OF COUNTRY AND LAWS COULD BE SECURED THROUGH THE MILITIA - CIVILIANS PRIMARILY, SOLDIERS ON OCCASION.
THE SIGNIFICATION ATTRIBUTED TO THE TERM MILITIA APPEARS FROM THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION, THE HISTORY AND LEGISLATION OF COLONIES AND STATES, AND THE WRITINGS OF APPROVED COMMENTATORS. THESE SHOW PLAINLY ENOUGH THAT THE MILITIA COMPRISED ALL MALES PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF ACTING IN CONCERT FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE. "A BODY OF CITIZENS ENROLLED FOR MILITARY DISCIPLINE." AND FURTHER, THAT ORDINARILY WHEN CALLED FOR SERVICE THESE MEN WERE EXPECTED TO APPEAR BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME.
No where in this portion of the decision is the words militia or national guard used. The third paragraph cite is the most legal scholors make as a break between what a militia and the national guard is. So most legal and consititional scholars make the logical stretch that a militia as defined in the US Constituion is as it has always been defined for the previous 500 yrs of history. All males from the age of 18-45 that are capable of picking up a weapon in the common defense of the lands which they live in. The decision ultimately sent the case back down to the district court to rule on again, however it did define that the National Firearms Act of 1936 was legal and it did start the defination in legal terms what a firearm is.
Also it should be known that the War Department(now Department of the Army) has given broad overview in how a state can raise and train a regulated militia. This book is available via amazon.com, War Department Regulations on militias
IP: Logged |
posted
While it's a tricky issue for me, I really have to agree with a point made above. While when it was written, an armed nation could in fact deter invaders and allow one to fight back against an oppressive regime of a government, these days that won't do JACK SQUAT. If a nation with technology on peer with our's suddenly attacked our soil, no matter what guns someone dragged in, it wouldn't matter. It would be like 1000 knights with swords fighting 100 soldiers with rifles. I can safely say it would be lucky if even one rifleman died in that battle.
Posts: 958 | From: United States | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be like 1000 knights with swords fighting 100 soldiers with rifles. I can safely say it would be lucky if even one rifleman died in that battle.
I think some Zulu's - and their British opponents - might disagree with you...
quote: The British had just entered Zululand after Zulu King Cetshwayo refused to capitulate to a set of strict demands. Certain of easy victory, the British set up an unfortified camp at the base of the small Isandlwana Mountain.
Most of the force headed into the mountains in search of a Zulu army that, in reality, was in a ravine just a few miles away. Some 20,000 warriors attacked the exposed camp in the classic "horns of the buffalo" formation developed by Shaka Zulu decades before.
Running down the mountains, screaming war chants, the main force -- the head and the chest of the buffalo -- attacked head on, while the left and the right horns swept around the camp, encircling it and cutting off any retreat.
During the battle, the plain fell into the near darkness of a partial eclipse.
Isandlwana, 1879
The British relied on their rifles to stop the enemy force which used melee weapons. They were wrong.
-------------------- All along the untrodden paths of the future, I can see the footprints of an unseen hand. Posts: 6912 | From: Flanders | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Dark Jaguar: If a nation with technology on peer with our's suddenly attacked our soil, no matter what guns someone dragged in, it wouldn't matter. It would be like 1000 knights with swords fighting 100 soldiers with rifles. I can safely say it would be lucky if even one rifleman died in that battle.
On the contrary a guerilla war fought on the soil of the defenders can prove costly enough that the invaders will never truly be able to settle the invaded territory. eg. Ireland, The Balkan states during WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion...
-------------------- "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die." Posts: 2776 | From: LSA Anaconda, Iraq | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff M.: On the contrary a guerilla war fought on the soil of the defenders can prove costly enough that the invaders will never truly be able to settle the invaded territory. eg. Ireland, The Balkan states during WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion...
Actually, Vietnam and Aghanistan only held out because of superpower logistics -- the Soviets supplying the Viet Cong and the U.S. supplying the Mujaheddin. These were both "catspaw" wars, as opposed to guerilla insurgencies per se.
(This doesn't exactly contradict your point, but it might bear a little on the subtext.)
Silas
-------------------- When on music's mighty pinion, souls of men to heaven rise, Then both vanish earth's dominion, man is native to the skies. Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Garth
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
The real point is- Gun Control laws do not seem to have any significant effect on Violent crime- either way (there is some limited info which shows that areas which require guns may have a limited LOCAL reduction in violent crime).
Although some nations with Gun control have lower violent crime than others with little control- the amount of guns & controls on same seem to have little to do with the crime rate.
IP: Logged |
quote:I always say, if I get a shotgun for home defense, it will be a single shot. That's all that's needed.
ham "fully automatic pants wetter" bubba
Now THAT"S gun control!
Actually, though nothing say "get the NFBSK out" like the cycling of a pump handle on a shotgun. It is an unmistakable sound that almost everybody has heard, at least in the movies if not in person.
Posts: 104 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I always say, if I get a shotgun for home defense, it will be a single shot. That's all that's needed.
Let me know how that turns out when you have a pair of burglars break into your house.
-------------------- I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. -- On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs by LTC. Dave Grossman, USA (Ret) Posts: 675 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I always say, if I get a shotgun for home defense, it will be a single shot. That's all that's needed.
Let me know how that turns out when you have a pair of burglars break into your house.
Real burglars, or tv burglars?
A real burglar would probably surrender to an empty shotgun, and would be doubly likely to do so when his partner is lying dead on the floor.
(Real burglars get in one another's way so you can shoot both at once... Real burglars don't practice tactics... As one old D&D player once said, "They'll let *anyone* into the Theives' Guild these days!")
Silas (Cleric of Kretosa) Sparkhammer
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, what Silas said. I remember reading a post on some forum arguing against the ban on high-capacity magazines, and one of the posters argued some (perhaps not real) incident where some women had been assualted and raped by a large group (15+), and used this as a reason why high capacity magazines should be legal (so you could shoot all of them).
In real life, if you were to pull out a gun on a gang and start shooting, they'd either flee when they saw the gun, flee when the first one or two were shot, or return fire. In any case, I didn't see it as a very good argument.
- Il-Mari
-------------------- When you mix faith with science, you serve neither and weaken both.
- Richard P. Sloan and Larry VandeCreek Posts: 1094 | From: Helsinki, Finland | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
High capacity magazines are good because in combat you tend to miss alot more than you hit.
-------------------- "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die." Posts: 2776 | From: LSA Anaconda, Iraq | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a person needs 10, why might they not need 17? Who's to decide?
-------------------- "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die." Posts: 2776 | From: LSA Anaconda, Iraq | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff M.: On the contrary a guerilla war fought on the soil of the defenders can prove costly enough that the invaders will never truly be able to settle the invaded territory. eg. Ireland, The Balkan states during WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion...
Actually, Vietnam and Aghanistan only held out because of superpower logistics -- the Soviets supplying the Viet Cong and the U.S. supplying the Mujaheddin. These were both "catspaw" wars, as opposed to guerilla insurgencies per se.
(This doesn't exactly contradict your point, but it might bear a little on the subtext.)
Silas
In all honesty, the ongoing problems in Iraq might be a slightly better analogy.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Southern Air Pirate: The third paragraph cite is the most legal scholors make as a break between what a militia and the national guard is. So most legal and consititional scholars make the logical stretch that a militia as defined in the US Constituion is as it has always been defined for the previous 500 yrs of history. All males from the age of 18-45 that are capable of picking up a weapon in the common defense of the lands which they live in. [/URL]
Not sure who those scholars are, but Lawrence Tribe's extremely well-respected American Constitutional Law says "The Court has cited Miller for the proposition that Congress is free to prohibit gun ownership so long as it does not impair a state's ability to have a militia-i.e. National Guard unit, as we think of it now" (1988 p. 299 n. 6)
-------------------- pat "Megadittoes Rush" young
THUMP, THUMP, THUMP Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Orig. Posted by Silas: Well, if my model of history is right, the uprising in Iraq cannot succeed because it doesn't have superpower backing.
Geez I hope it doesn't. Although as I was leaving the house this morning some USMC Colonel was stating that he had captured large numbers of syrians under arms in Fallujah. I can't find a cite for this, has anyone else seen it?
-------------------- "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die." Posts: 2776 | From: LSA Anaconda, Iraq | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A real burglar would probably surrender to an empty shotgun, and would be doubly likely to do so when his partner is lying dead on the floor.
(Real burglars get in one another's way so you can shoot both at once...
You think so? Have you investigated a lot of home invasions? I have yet to see an investgation where the burglars lined up and the homeowner takes a 2 for 1 deal. I have seen one shot and the other flee, but I have also seen the opposite. Also believe it or not, just because its a shotgun doesn't make it the super duper 1 shot and thats all deal stopper. I have seen people shot by one and not seem effected for a few minutes. And despite it being a shotgun, it is quite possible to miss, and then all you have is a semi decent impact weapon.
I have seen plenty of interesting things. TV seems rather dull now.
-------------------- I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. -- On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs by LTC. Dave Grossman, USA (Ret) Posts: 675 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A real burglar would probably surrender to an empty shotgun, and would be doubly likely to do so when his partner is lying dead on the floor.
(Real burglars get in one another's way so you can shoot both at once...
You think so? Have you investigated a lot of home invasions? I have yet to see an investgation where the burglars lined up and the homeowner takes a 2 for 1 deal.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was: trained SWAT officers know not to cross one another's line of fire. That's also something the military teaches. But burglars don't undergo intensive training, and *might* cross one another. So a homeowner *might* get a twofer.
I've never investigated a crime scene, and I have no idea how many times multiple victims are hit by single shotgun discharges -- but from the way a shotgun spreads, it's got to have happened a few times, eh?
Silas
-------------------- When on music's mighty pinion, souls of men to heaven rise, Then both vanish earth's dominion, man is native to the skies. Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JR: Everytime that canada's firearm laws have been tightened, the rate of firearms related offenses have gone down.
Let me ask a question. You say firearms related offenses go down. What about crime in general? If firearms related crimes went down but knife stabbing, or blunt trauma goes up then what did you really fix? I personally have mixed feelings about gun control. I own several rifles. I do not shoot them very often; say less then once a year. Though, I would never want to give up the right to own them. I was against the assault weapon ban. It never made sense to me. Assault weapons were never a large % of the weapons used in crimes. Now, I do agree with the limiting of certain types of ammo. I do not think private citizens need armor piercing rounds. Bambi is not wearing body armour.
Posts: 4580 | From: Walnut Creek, CA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:but from the way a shotgun spreads, it's got to have happened a few times, eh?
as was stated it can vary,but figure with standard self defense set up, using buckshot on average about 1 inch spread per yard. Longest shot I could even take in my house would be between 5 and 10 yards, so figure a 10 inch group. Could 2 people be hit by one shot? Sure, but its not extremely likely. Besides after about 15 yards I would switch to slugs anyways because I'm of the opinion that you should only hit the person, or target that you intend. If two targets need hitting, then that is why you have something more than a single shot.
-------------------- I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. -- On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs by LTC. Dave Grossman, USA (Ret) Posts: 675 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:but from the way a shotgun spreads, it's got to have happened a few times, eh?
as was stated it can vary,but figure with standard self defense set up, using buckshot on average about 1 inch spread per yard. Longest shot I could even take in my house would be between 5 and 10 yards, so figure a 10 inch group. Could 2 people be hit by one shot? Sure, but its not extremely likely. Besides after about 15 yards I would switch to slugs anyways because I'm of the opinion that you should only hit the person, or target that you intend. If two targets need hitting, then that is why you have something more than a single shot.
Well, as I've said before, I'm here to learn...and sometimes that means "unlearning..." I had thought (probably from tv and movies) that shotgun spread was much greater (like 15 degrees, instead of the 1.5 degree implied by your figures.)
(How about sawn-off scatterguns? I'm thinking of the short-barreled puppy borne by "Mississippi" in John Wayne's "El Dorado.")
re twofers, how often does a regular slug go through one guy and into another?
Here's a dumb shotgun joke: a guy is showing off his shotgun, and says, "This here is my sawed-off shotgun." His friend looks at it and says, "That is a full-length shotgun if ever I have seen one." And the first guy says, "Maybe so...but when I sees poachers, I points it at them and I shouts 'Sod Off!' And generally, they does."
Silas (extremely good rifle shot, but can't use a pistol for beans) Sparkhammer
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sawing a shotgun off beyond a certain length is illegal.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Kilrati
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote: In any of the above cases, would guns really have been effective enough to stop the government? Even if every citizen had owned a gun, I still find it hard to believe they would've successfully been able to defend themselves against an organized military. I'm not really an anti-gun zealot, but this seems like poor reasoning to me.
I recall I quote (But I don’t have a ef., sorry) from Gulag archipelago by Solzhenitsyn in which the author say’s : (I’m paraphrasing) We were sitting there in the gulag, and wondered what would have happened if each of us had fired one shot before being arrested.
quote:Again, I wonder how the decisions of twenty years before, by a totally different administration, could be held responsible for the disaster of a later regime. Also, in the intervening years, there had been a decade of war! […] In many of the 'cases' mentioned, we can wonder if there was widespread gun ownership to start with.
No one is suggesting that gun control causes genocide. Only that genocide is much more difficult if the target group to be killed is armed.
quote:Isn't President Bush a member of the NRA? Could it be that whoever spread this stuff still thinks Clinton is in charge?
Maybe it was written during those dark days.
quote: That's ridiculous. The Constitution provides an amendment process so that parts of it can be discarded without it forcing us to chuck the whole thing. The removal of certain key parts may render the whole unworkable, but the fact that something is included in the Bill of Rights does not prove that it is one of these parts.
I don’t remember a Brady amendment, or a assault-weapons ban being passed by 2/3 of each house and 2/3 of the states. If your gonna take liberties with the meaning of one part of the constitution instead of amending it, then yes, you should expect that liberties might be taken with all of it.
There will always be thugs to kill one, two or twenty people. Only a government can kill 100, 1000 or 1000 000 people.
quote: In any of the above cases, would guns really have been effective enough to stop the government? Even if every citizen had owned a gun, I still find it hard to believe they would've successfully been able to defend themselves against an organized military. I'm not really an anti-gun zealot, but this seems like poor reasoning to me.
I recall I quote (But I don’t have a ef., sorry) from Gulag archipelago by Solzhenitsyn in which the author say’s : (I’m paraphrasing) We were sitting there in the gulag, and wondered what would have happened if each of us had fired one shot before being arrested.
quote:Again, I wonder how the decisions of twenty years before, by a totally different administration, could be held responsible for the disaster of a later regime. Also, in the intervening years, there had been a decade of war! […] In many of the 'cases' mentioned, we can wonder if there was widespread gun ownership to start with.
No one is suggesting that gun control causes genocide. Only that genocide is much more difficult if the target group to be killed is armed.
quote:Isn't President Bush a member of the NRA? Could it be that whoever spread this stuff still thinks Clinton is in charge?
Maybe it was written during those dark days.
quote: That's ridiculous. The Constitution provides an amendment process so that parts of it can be discarded without it forcing us to chuck the whole thing. The removal of certain key parts may render the whole unworkable, but the fact that something is included in the Bill of Rights does not prove that it is one of these parts.
I don’t remember a Brady amendment, or a assault-weapons ban being passed by 2/3 of each house and 2/3 of the states. If your gonna take liberties with the meaning of one part of the constitution instead of amending it, then yes, you should expect that liberties might be taken with all of it.
There will always be thugs to kill one, two or twenty people. Only a government can kill 100, 1000 or 1000 000 people.
Kilrati
Reference Solzhenitsyn; I can't find my copies either, but I recall in one passage how he was aghast at the apathy that allowed the NKVD to work so openly. IIRC, he wondered why it never occurred to people to get hammers and knives and lie in wait for the NKVD squads, or even to just make off with their vans (which would wait outside with just the driver). I don't think guns were mentioned in that passage.
Whoever spread the original message can't expect to remain unchallenged if he distorts history. He also needs to keep his glurge up to date with changes to the Presidency as well!
-------------------- You fool! That's not a warrior, that's a banana! - a surreal moment in a role-playing game Posts: 2480 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by First of Two Bits: Sawing a shotgun off beyond a certain length is illegal.
Not really, in most states it is legal, it just takes time, effort and about $250.
A title 1 (least regulated) shotgun must have a barrel of 18 or more inches and an overall length of 26 or more inches.
If you want to cut it down from that, you're going to have to register it and yourself with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which can take some doing. Here's an article on how you can make your own short-barreled shotgun.
- Il-Mari
-------------------- When you mix faith with science, you serve neither and weaken both.
- Richard P. Sloan and Larry VandeCreek Posts: 1094 | From: Helsinki, Finland | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
