We interrupt this program to bring you an important message...
ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu
merits of an "assault" weapons ban based on the irrelevant concept that these
weapons aren't for "hunting." I just thought I would take a moment and
remind Americans what the Constitution says and challenge anyone to tell me
where hunting is even remotely discussed as a limiting factor for the owner-
ship of weaponry:
Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When one looks at how ruthless our government is in trying
to go after and destroy people like in Waco who own "illegal" guns, it should
become abundantly clear that this government is evil. The ownership of
weaponry is the only guarantee that the people still have any say in it.
It isn't just the John Birchers anymore, people from all walks of life
are buying weapons for their personal protection. Don't let the teens with
guns rhetoric stop you from opposing gun control because liberty once taken
away cannot be given back. Except by force. The teens with guns issue
will come and go, but gun control laws will remain long after. We need to
be prepared when the police start searching our homes without a warrant.
We need to be ready when the government starts coming for our guns. And they
will.
Ralph D. Taite
President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
---
"Clarence Thomas, also known as 'hey, you, boy', has no business being
on the supreme court. He was appointed because he was the only ass licking
black man Bush could root out of the cotton field."
---Taylor Moore (ap...@freenet.carleton.ca)
mike phillips
I agree, I am getting tired of seeing the media and politicians brainwashing
the masses with rhetoric assocciating the 2nd amendment with some vague
right to go hunting.
Its time to vote the bums out of office.
Mike
Stilt Man
>I just thought I would take a moment and
>remind Americans what the Constitution says and challenge anyone to tell me
>where hunting is even remotely discussed as a limiting factor for the owner-
>ship of weaponry:
>State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I challenge Mr. Taite to tell me where the power of Arms is even remotely
discussed as a limiting factor for the ownership of weaponry.
In fact, I think this willful perversion of the Constitution needs to be
reversed.
Ban the Bomb? Heck, I want a Bomb in every house! Why should we stop at
guns? Just think of the deterrence to rob a house if you know you could be
reduced to your component atoms on the spot!
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
When I die, I would like to go peacefully in my sleep, like my uncle; not
screaming as the other passengers in his car.
--sign in OSU Computer Sci. lab
Carol Reed
it, i reccommend that they read some of the writings by the authors of the
consitution and that amendment. when you are done, you will have no doubt
in your mind that they definitely meant for people to have the right to
have guns of the kind that a soldier can carry into battle and they wanted
to ensure this right such that the government would not tyrannize the people.
Brendan Gormley
>In article <2qdpek$7...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu>,
>> After listening to our power grabbing, gun grabbing Congress debate the
>>merits of an "assault" weapons ban based on the irrelevant concept that these
>>weapons aren't for "hunting." I just thought I would take a moment and
>>remind Americans what the Constitution says and challenge anyone to tell me
>>where hunting is even remotely discussed as a limiting factor for the owner-
>>ship of weaponry:
>>
Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
>>
>> 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.
>>
[more deleted]
>
>Once you admit that you aren't advocating personal ownership of all
>arms including atomic bombs, your argument about some kind of absolute
>right becomes rediculous.
Wrong. The intent of the framers constitutes an absolute right, so it
is not ridiculous to argue that such an absolute right exists. This
is the implicit premise of the first posting that you criticize.
Determining the intent of the Framers is the job of the courts. The
legislature can pass any law that it wants, and it is up to the courts to
review the law when the state attempts to enforce it. Once the courts
make a determination, that becomes the effective standard (in other
words the effective standard is derived from the absolute standard
through the (alas imperfect) judicial review of the Constitution).
Now I lack adith a twenty-two calibre revolver. Just for good measure,
the most recent case-- a young couple in a law firm in San Fransisco were
shot at close range after hiding themselves from a gun man who had
discharged multiple rounds in the office... He reloaded, as I recall,
a couple of times. That *wasn't* an assault weapon, and yet it initiated
a campaign against guns in the state that received extensive media coverage.
These anecdotes don't substitute for statistics, but there ar,e more for
ways of approaching this issue, and honest inquiry will lead anyone
who conducts it to the conclusion that a ban on semi-automatic rifles with
more than twenty rounds in the magazine provides no significant protection
By the way, an "assault weapon" is much more narrowly defined than the
aforementioned catagory. So unless you're a gun manufacture, this
legislation is purely symbolic anyway.
Brendan
William December Starr
In article <CpEMp...@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU>,
wev...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka) said:
>> Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
>>
>> 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.
>
> Your argument is no better than that from every radical gun nut before
> you.
>
> There is a line between what we allow in the hands of any citizen, and
> what we forbid to anyone but the military. We draw the line somewhere
> between sticks and stones and atomic bombs.
Of course, in doing so "we" violate the precise letter of the Supreme
Law of the Land...
> Once you admit that you aren't advocating personal ownership of all
> arms including atomic bombs, your argument about some kind of absolute
> right becomes rediculous.
In legal matters -- including issues of Constitutional law -- it matters
not at all whether a law is ridiculous. The Constitution simply forbids
any infringement upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms;
accordingly, any laws which do infringe that right are unconstitutional.
If you believe that this is ridiculous and should be changed, you are
free to advocate and work towards the ratification of an Amendment to
the Constitution.
-- William December Starr <wds...@world.std.com>
Anthony L. Kimball
| Proponents of gun control are trying to push it closer to sticks and stones.
| Opponents of gun control are trying to push it closer to atomic bombs.
| Once you admit that you aren't advocating personal ownership of all
| arms including atomic bombs, your argument about some kind of absolute
| right becomes rediculous.
An inalienable natural right is derived from the ability of a natural
human to exercise. A human in a state of nature is able to construct
a repeating firearm and is therefore possessed of an inalienable right
to possess one. A human in a state of nature is not able to construct
(using technology currently in the public domain) a nuclear explosive.
Thus the ability to exercise is derived from participation in a social
body. Thus the right to exercise is alienable by that body. Only a
social organization with the ability to independently construct and
deploy such a device has the inalienable right to its possession.
-- Anthony L Kimball -- a...@think.com, a...@msc.edu, {uunet,harvard}!think!alk
"Claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence is not ground
for federal habeas relief." -US Supreme Court 1/93 (prisoner executed 5/93)
+Yeshua, the Messiah, suffered, died and rose to give you victory over death+
Pete Lienemann x255-3385
Edward Hartnett
A> In alt.politics.clinton on Fri, 6 May 1994 23:32:01 GMT, Robert T. Weverka (wev...@spot.Colorado.EDU) writes:
>> Proponents of gun control are trying to push it closer to sticks and stones.
>> Opponents of gun control are trying to push it closer to atomic bombs.
>> Once you admit that you aren't advocating personal ownership of all
>> arms including atomic bombs, your argument about some kind of absolute
>> right becomes rediculous.
A> An inalienable natural right is derived from the ability of a natural
A> human to exercise. A human in a state of nature is able to construct
A> a repeating firearm and is therefore possessed of an inalienable right
A> to possess one. A human in a state of nature is not able to construct
A> (using technology currently in the public domain) a nuclear explosive.
A> Thus the ability to exercise is derived from participation in a social
A> body. Thus the right to exercise is alienable by that body. Only a
A> social organization with the ability to independently construct and
A> deploy such a device has the inalienable right to its possession.
Bah.
This argument holds no water. How is man in his natural state any more
able to construct a rifle than he is to construct an A bomb?
In both cases it is simply a question of obtaining the correct
materials, brains, and resouces to put it all together.
Practically speak the A bomb is more complex, and thus takes far more
resources, and thus is easier for the police to spot than a place that
makes guns, which can be smaller and involve less resources and
people.
--
Edward Hartnett e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov
(301) 286-2396 fax: (301) 286-1754
Geek code: GAT d? -p+ c++++ l u+++ e- m+ s+++/++ n+ h--- f? !g w+ t++ r y++
ta...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu
2 12-gauge shotguns (with 00 buck and 000 buck)
1 SKS 7.62 semi-auto rifle (w/2 20 shot clips)
1 AR-7 Survival .22LR (can be collapsed and carried in a backpack)
1 .380 Lorcin pistol
1 .357 Magnum Ruger Blackhawk (single action) revolver
1 .22LR Jennings pistol
1 9mm Makarov (Chinese) pistol
>Pete
That SKS is deadly accurate. Isn't it one of the ones Comrade Klinton
banned?
Ralph D. Taite
President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
---
Let them keep it in their pants then, or wear a raincoat. If they're too
stupid or ignorant to do that, tough luck. They take their chances.
---Pro-choice Taylor Moore (ap...@freenet.carleton.ca)
Michael Rivero
>
>
>In a previous article, ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu () says:
>
>> After listening to our power grabbing, gun grabbing Congress debate the
>>merits of an "assault" weapons ban based on the irrelevant concept that these
>>weapons aren't for "hunting." I just thought I would take a moment and
>>remind Americans what the Constitution says and challenge anyone to tell me
>>where hunting is even remotely discussed as a limiting factor for the owner-
>>ship of weaponry:
>>
>> Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
He doesn't have to join, he already IS the militia, according to
Tile 10 of the United States code. ALL able bodies persons (which would
include females under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment)
are in the miltia, which includes you and me as well.
Ergo, it is ILLEGAL for the government to disarm a legally constituted
militia.
And the fact is, the 2nd amendment says it right out. The right
of the PEOPLE (not militia, national guard, army, or storm troopers)
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's the law.
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
| Michael Rivero michael%neu...@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov riv...@kwcc.com |
| Special FX Wizard (Current Project, "STARGATE" Release November 1994 ) |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nathan J. Mehl
>
> That SKS is deadly accurate. Isn't it one of the ones Comrade Klinton
>banned?
Indeed, a "deadly accurate" gun. It's killed two of my friends so far,
and injured three others. Lovely weapon, yes.
(Go to a library, and do a keyword search for "Simon's Rock" in their
periodicals database if you want a full explanation. It's why
Massachusetts has passed yet another round of gun laws, this time finally
eliminating that damn reciprocity loophole.)
And Ralph, my dear friend...
...edit your fucking newsgroups line. This has no business on
alt.sex, or half of the other groups you've posted it to. You have been
*the* single most consistant over-crossposter on the whole damn net for
the last two months or so. If you have to be involved with every group
on the net, why don't you try news.announce.newusers and read the damn
ettiquette files?!
===============================================================================
| I woke the same as any other day / except a voice was in my head / it said |
|seize the day, pull the trigger, drop the blade / and watch the rolling heads|
===<Nathan J. Mehl>===============================<nm...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>===
ta...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu
John Angus <an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>In a previous article, ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu () says:
>>merits of an "assault" weapons ban based on the irrelevant concept that these
>>weapons aren't for "hunting." I just thought I would take a moment and
>>remind Americans what the Constitution says and challenge anyone to tell me
>>where hunting is even remotely discussed as a limiting factor for the owner-
>>ship of weaponry:
>> Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
>> 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.
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did serve in the militia and on active duty during
Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
>> When one looks at how ruthless our government is in trying
>>to go after and destroy people like in Waco who own "illegal" guns, it should
>>become abundantly clear that this government is evil. The ownership of
>>weaponry is the only guarantee that the people still have any say in it.
>Ohh right, all the other rights have dissapeared, right? You're just
>afraid someone will take away the only thing you've got that makes you
>feel important, that makes you feel like a man.
If you don't want to own guns, don't. I'm not particularly
concerned what you may think of my manhood. I'm not trying to prove anything
to you, but you really should keep your fascist laws off my weaponry or
we may have a very ugly situation on our hands.
>> It isn't just the John Birchers anymore, people from all walks of life
>>are buying weapons for their personal protection.
>With overarmed facists like you running around loose instead of in rubber
>rooms, I'm not surprised Americans are scared.
Fascists (and most authoritarians) want to *disarm* the people. I
think your analogy doesn't hold much water.
> Don't let the teens with
>>guns rhetoric stop you from opposing gun control because liberty once taken
>>away cannot be given back. Except by force. The teens with guns issue
>>will come and go, but gun control laws will remain long after. We need to
>>be prepared when the police start searching our homes without a warrant.
>>We need to be ready when the government starts coming for our guns. And they
>>will.
>The sooner the better. A word of advice, Ralphup, when the SWAT team shows
>up at your door...resist arrest!
Ha-ha. On the other hand, if the SWAT teams are beating on my door
trying to take my guns, they'll be busting down your door as well. It
will only be a matter of time.
>JA
Nathan J. Mehl
>In article <CpGJr...@metronet.com>,
>Michael Kalen Smith <mks...@metronet.com> wrote:
>>I was part of a KT in Vietnam who later supported Gene
>>McCarthy for president.
>
> What is a KT? Who was/is Gene McCarthy?
>
> Ralph D. Taite
> President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
?! The "President" of the "Institute for Conservative Policy Review"
doesn't know who Gene McCarthy is?!
That has got to be sarcasm, right?
Michael Kalen Smith
Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2qdpek$7...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu> ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>>remind Americans what the Constitution says and challenge anyone to tell me
>>where hunting is even remotely discussed as a limiting factor for the owner-
>>ship of weaponry:
>>State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>
>discussed as a limiting factor for the ownership of weaponry.
>
>In fact, I think this willful perversion of the Constitution needs to be
>reversed.
>
>Ban the Bomb? Heck, I want a Bomb in every house! Why should we stop at
>guns? Just think of the deterrence to rob a house if you know you could be
>reduced to your component atoms on the spot!
> __________________________________________________________________________
>|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
>|__________________________________________________________________________|
It's a single sentence. No qualifiers on "power" (I assume you mean
"firepower") and no definition of what constitutes "Arms." Americans have
the Constitutional right to possess weapons -- period. The 'Brady Law' is
not only an infringement, the supporters of it *brag* about the fact.
Please note: I'm a handgun-owner who thinks hunting is stupid and who has
no use for the microcephalics at the NRA. I'm a yellow-dog-Democrat and a
7th-generation Texan who voted for Clinton and who supports drastic health
care reform. I was part of a KT in Vietnam who later supported Gene
McCarthy for president. So *don't* think you can pigeonhole everyone who
supports or opposes a particular position....
--
Michael K. Smith mks...@metronet.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It doesn't TAKE all kinds, we just HAVE all kinds
Michael Rivero
>In article <CpGpE...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>John Angus <an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>In a previous article, ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu () says:
>>> After listening to our power grabbing, gun grabbing Congress debate the
>>>merits of an "assault" weapons ban based on the irrelevant concept that these
>>>weapons aren't for "hunting." I just thought I would take a moment and
>>>remind Americans what the Constitution says and challenge anyone to tell me
>>>where hunting is even remotely discussed as a limiting factor for the owner-
>>>ship of weaponry:
>>> Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
>>> 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.
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>So join the militia, Ralpher, otherwise give up your guns.
>
> I did serve in the militia and on active duty during
>Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
I may not agree with certain military actions, but I have nothing but respect
for anyone willing to risk their lives for what they believe in, even when
I do not share those beliefs.
You are a soldier who "walks his talk". Actions are always far more
costly than words. It's a pleasure to meet you.
ta...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu
>McCarthy for president.
What is a KT? Who was/is Gene McCarthy?
Ralph D. Taite
John Angus
In a previous article, ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu () says:
> After listening to our power grabbing, gun grabbing Congress debate the
>merits of an "assault" weapons ban based on the irrelevant concept that these
>weapons aren't for "hunting." I just thought I would take a moment and
>remind Americans what the Constitution says and challenge anyone to tell me
>where hunting is even remotely discussed as a limiting factor for the owner-
>ship of weaponry:
>
> Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
>
> 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.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
So join the militia, Ralpher, otherwise give up your guns.
> When one looks at how ruthless our government is in trying
>to go after and destroy people like in Waco who own "illegal" guns, it should
>become abundantly clear that this government is evil. The ownership of
>weaponry is the only guarantee that the people still have any say in it.
Ohh right, all the other rights have dissapeared, right? You're just
afraid someone will take away the only thing you've got that makes you
feel important, that makes you feel like a man.
> It isn't just the John Birchers anymore, people from all walks of life
>are buying weapons for their personal protection.
With overarmed facists like you running around loose instead of in rubber
rooms, I'm not surprised Americans are scared.
Don't let the teens with
>guns rhetoric stop you from opposing gun control because liberty once taken
>away cannot be given back. Except by force. The teens with guns issue
>will come and go, but gun control laws will remain long after. We need to
>be prepared when the police start searching our homes without a warrant.
>We need to be ready when the government starts coming for our guns. And they
>will.
The sooner the better. A word of advice, Ralphup, when the SWAT team shows
up at your door...resist arrest!
JA
--
John D Angus | The esteem of wise and good men is the greatest of all
Ottawa, Ontario | temporal encouragements to virtue; and it is the mark of an
CANADA | abandoned spirit to have no regard to it.
-Edmund Burke
John Angus
In a previous article, mks...@metronet.com (Michael Kalen Smith) says:
>In article <2qevl7...@flop.engr.orst.edu>,
>>Ban the Bomb? Heck, I want a Bomb in every house! Why should we stop at
>>guns? Just think of the deterrence to rob a house if you know you could be
>>reduced to your component atoms on the spot!
>Please note: I'm a handgun-owner who thinks hunting is stupid and who has
>no use for the microcephalics at the NRA. I'm a yellow-dog-Democrat and a
>7th-generation Texan who voted for Clinton and who supports drastic health
>care reform. I was part of a KT in Vietnam who later supported Gene
>McCarthy for president. So *don't* think you can pigeonhole everyone who
>supports or opposes a particular position....
>
The question is, would you be so attached to your gun if every
hood out there didn't have one, and if crime wasn't so out of control?
Here in Canada, gun controls are getting more and more stringent, and
we're moving towards a total ban on handguns within the next few
years. (all assault weapons are already banned). I look forward
to that day.
Anthony L. Kimball
| This argument holds no water. How is man in his natural state any more
| able to construct a rifle than he is to construct an A bomb?
Get me a paid leave of absence from work, drop me in the Superior
National Forest without implements, and I will leave within 6 months,
carrying a loaded repeating rifle of my own manufacture. I'll give
you 2:1 odds on your $1000 bet. Then you choose the location, and try
to do the same with a fission explosive.
Anthony L. Kimball
| 2 12-gauge shotguns (with 00 buck and 000 buck)
| 1 SKS 7.62 semi-auto rifle (w/2 20 shot clips)
| 1 AR-7 Survival .22LR (can be collapsed and carried in a backpack)
| 1 .380 Lorcin pistol
| 1 .357 Magnum Ruger Blackhawk (single action) revolver
| 1 .22LR Jennings pistol
| 1 9mm Makarov (Chinese) pistol
We'll send the Crips by around 4 a.m. tomorrow to pick them up.
Anthony L. Kimball
| > 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.
| >
| >----------------------------------------------------------------------
| So join the militia, Ralpher, otherwise give up your guns.
Ralph is probably already in the militia, as you are, whether you like
it or not. The militia consists of all able-bodied males from 18-40
years of age. Of course that is not relevant, since the two clauses
are independent, but even if it were, you would have no point.
John Angus
In a previous article, mic...@brain.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) says:
>In article <CpGpE...@freenet.carleton.ca> an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus) writes:
>>
>>
>>In a previous article, ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu () says:
>>
>>> After listening to our power grabbing, gun grabbing Congress debate the
>>>merits of an "assault" weapons ban based on the irrelevant concept that these
>>>weapons aren't for "hunting." I just thought I would take a moment and
>>>remind Americans what the Constitution says and challenge anyone to tell me
>>>where hunting is even remotely discussed as a limiting factor for the owner-
>>>ship of weaponry:
>>>
>>> Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>So join the militia, Ralpher, otherwise give up your guns.
>>
>
> He doesn't have to join, he already IS the militia, according to
>Tile 10 of the United States code. ALL able bodies persons (which would
>include females under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment)
>are in the miltia, which includes you and me as well.
>
> Ergo, it is ILLEGAL for the government to disarm a legally constituted
>militia.
>
Well, tell you what, then, if you want to keep exactly in tune with
what the authors of the 2nd amendment had in mind, fine. Every able-bodied
person will be permitted to keep...a musket. Or however many muskets
you want. There you go. No violation of the constitution.
Happy?
Joseph Bou-Younes
>merits of an "assault" weapons ban based on the irrelevant concept that these
>weapons aren't for "hunting." I just thought I would take a moment and
>remind Americans what the Constitution says and challenge anyone to tell me
>where hunting is even remotely discussed as a limiting factor for the owner-
>ship of weaponry:
>
> Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
>
> 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.
Odd, but the second and third words of the second amendment seem to
read "well regulated." That suggests to me that, in the aim of such
regulation, your government has much latitude as to how to ensure "the
security of a free state" without infringing on "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms."
> When one looks at how ruthless our government is in trying
>to go after and destroy people like in Waco who own "illegal" guns, it should
>become abundantly clear that this government is evil. The ownership of
>weaponry is the only guarantee that the people still have any say in it.
Yee Haw! Lets go shoot us some Democrats. I can just see you running
up the mall in D.C. with your (Russian-made) Kalishnikov in one hand
expressing your "say." Geez; you folks have one civil war and you consider it
a democratic tool the same as an election.
> It isn't just the John Birchers anymore, people from all walks of life
>are buying weapons for their personal protection. Don't let the teens with
>guns rhetoric stop you from opposing gun control because liberty once taken
>away cannot be given back. Except by force. The teens with guns issue
>will come and go, but gun control laws will remain long after.
Gag me with a 30-O6 cartridge. I'm a teen. I'm licensed to hunt and
have fired several types of firearms (I have yet to buy my own) and I see
absolutely no need for semi-automatic assault rifles in the "civilized" U.S.
society. If its protection you want, a Winchester defender is legal, and
offers anyone (w/ little or no gun experience) the ability to defend their
home and family... and with point and shoot simplicity!
>We need to
>be prepared when the police start searching our homes without a warrant.
>We need to be ready when the government starts coming for our guns. And they
>will.
That's not even worth a response.
> Ralph D. Taite
> President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
How red's your neck Ralph?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bou-Younes | Truth, justice, but PLEASE, NOT the American way!
jose...@internex.org | "Wake up and smell the Hammous!" - Alladin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ta...@grumpy.cc.utexas.edu
Joseph Bou-Younes <jose...@io.org> wrote:
>>We need to
>>be prepared when the police start searching our homes without a warrant.
>>We need to be ready when the government starts coming for our guns. And they
>>will.
> That's not even worth a response.
Well, then why did you respond to it?
However, since you did, how DO you explain Clinton attempting to
circumvent the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures in Chicago housing projects? To search for... you guessed it...
guns... Freedom, it was a nice concept while it lasted...
>Joseph Bou-Younes | Truth, justice, but PLEASE, NOT the American way!
Ralph D. Taite
President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
Michael B. Gebhardt
Hey guys, Great discussion. But take it to the gun groups (alt.guns, etc),
where it belongs, and would probably get a lot more airplay...
drh92
>
>In article <2qdpek$7...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu>,
> <ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> After listening to our power grabbing, gun grabbing Congress debate the
>>merits of an "assault" weapons ban based on the irrelevant concept that these
>>weapons aren't for "hunting." I just thought I would take a moment and
>>remind Americans what the Constitution says and challenge anyone to tell me
>>where hunting is even remotely discussed as a limiting factor for the owner-
>>ship of weaponry:
>>
***STUFF DELETED***
> Gag me with a 30-O6 cartridge. I'm a teen. I'm licensed to hunt and
>have fired several types of firearms (I have yet to buy my own) and I see
>absolutely no need for semi-automatic assault rifles in the "civilized" U.S.
>society. If its protection you want, a Winchester defender is legal, and
>offers anyone (w/ little or no gun experience) the ability to defend their
>home and family... and with point and shoot simplicity!
>
>>We need to
>>be prepared when the police start searching our homes without a warrant.
>>We need to be ready when the government starts coming for our guns. And they
>>will.
>
> That's not even worth a response.
>
>> Ralph D. Taite
>> President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
>
> How red's your neck Ralph?
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Joseph Bou-Younes | Truth, justice, but PLEASE, NOT the American way!
>jose...@internex.org | "Wake up and smell the Hammous!" - Alladin
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a second reason for banning asault weapons. In any shootout, you
naturally want the police to win. An advantage in force of arms is useful as is
the knowledge that you are not going to be on the receiving end of an automatic
weapon.
It is common knowledge that many semi-autos can be converted to full auto; this
may well be why the British Government banned such weaponry. In the UK, now,
there are no semi autos legally held, and precious few illegals. The weapon of
choice with criminals is the sawn-off shotgun, which is not really deadly at long
range.
This would seem to be the route for America to go. The concept that Americans
havew a right to bear arms was made when the continent was a frontier. It has
little place now, when our technology is so much deadlier, and most dangerous
animals have been partially eliminated. I would predict that in the bitter end,
America will lose much of it's civillian-held armoury. This is the way to go.
Guns are much too powerful a force to be easily available to the general public
without training and vetting of those applying for guns.
Now, I know that this post is flame-bait. It is also close to the truth, which also
hurts. The USA has the highest gun-related death rate of any "western" society.
It also has the larges number of guns per capita. These facts may not be
unrelated...
Dan H.
ta...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu
>There is a second reason for banning asault weapons. In any shootout, you
>naturally want the police to win.
I nominate this for the most idiotic gun-grabber comment of the
week.
Ralph D. Taite
President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
Donald R. McGregor
In article <1994May9.0...@aber.ac.uk> dr...@aber.ac.uk (drh92) writes:
: Odd, but the second and third words of the second amendment seem to
:read "well regulated." That suggests to me that, in the aim of such
:regulation, your government has much latitude as to how to ensure "the
:security of a free state" without infringing on "the right of the people to
:keep and bear arms."
You ought to read up on your constitutional law and history
a bit more. The second amendment is about militia weapons,
ie, individual military firearms like the AR-15 and the
public's right to own them. See the Yale Law Review
#99 and the recent Duke Law review article. You might
also pick up the text of US vs. Miller and US vs. Rock
Island.
:>It iscommon knowledge that many semi-autos can be converted to full auto; this
:>may well be why the British Government banned such weaponry. In the UK, now,
:>there are no semi autos legally held, and precious few illegals. The weapon of
:>choicewith criminals is the sawn-offshotgun,which is not really deadly at long
:>range.
The common knowledge is false. You cannot easily convert
any semi-auto available in the US to full auto. BATF regulations
prohibit the sale of any such weapons. It is, literally,
easier to make a full-auto weapon from scratch than it is
to convert a semi-auto to full auto; that's the criteria
the BATF uses to determine if the weaons is "easily convertible."
--
Don McGregor | "If there is a God, the Cardinal de Richelieu will have much
mcg...@crl.com | to answer for. If not...well, he had a successful life."
Mike Schwartz
|> There is a second reason for banning asault weapons. In any shootout, you
|> naturally want the police to win. An advantage in force of arms is useful as is
|> the knowledge that you are not going to be on the receiving end of an automatic
|> weapon.
|>
I think we all are pretty happy that the "police" didn't win the shootout
known as the Revolutionary War (1776).
|> It is common knowledge that many semi-autos can be converted to full auto; this
|> may well be why the British Government banned such weaponry. In the UK, now,
|> there are no semi autos legally held, and precious few illegals. The weapon of
|> choice with criminals is the sawn-off shotgun, which is not really deadly at long
|> range.
|>
And the Brittish government is going to arm the police for the first
time in history. But hey, this isn't Brittain.
|> This would seem to be the route for America to go. The concept that Americans
|> havew a right to bear arms was made when the continent was a frontier. It has
|> little place now, when our technology is so much deadlier, and most dangerous
|> animals have been partially eliminated. I would predict that in the bitter end,
|> America will lose much of it's civillian-held armoury. This is the way to go.
|> Guns are much too powerful a force to be easily available to the general public
|> without training and vetting of those applying for guns.
|>
Yep. And the document we call our Constitution was written way back then, too.
But it's survived this long and been legally amended many times. Most of us
think the Constitution has lasted this long because it didn't etch anything
in stone. It provided mechanisms to change the document - even the Bill of
Rights. But those mechanisms do not include legislation by congress,
the signing of such legislation, or the veto of such legislation.
What would seem the route for America to go is to pass an amendment to the
constitution to repeal the 2nd amendment.
|> Now, I know that this post is flame-bait. It is also close to the truth, which also
|> hurts. The USA has the highest gun-related death rate of any "western" society.
|> It also has the larges number of guns per capita. These facts may not be
|> unrelated...
|>
We also have the highest immigration rate. And we also have a government
that builds freeways to segregate white neighborhoods from black ones. And
we also have a government that builds projects like the Robert Taylor homes
and confines people under conditions that make crime appealing to them. And
we have a criminal justice system that arrests 15,000,000 people per year and
sends a small percentage (< 10%) to jail for more than a year.
|> Dan H.
Lloyd R. Parker
Actually, a human alone in nature has a better chance of getting
the raw materials for an atomic bomb than for a gun! Uranium and
plutonium exist in nature; gunpowder does not, to say nothing of
refined and cast metals.
David Veal
>Anthony L. Kimball (a...@et.msc.edu) wrote:
>: An inalienable natural right is derived from the ability of a natural
>: human to exercise. A human in a state of nature is able to construct
>: a repeating firearm and is therefore possessed of an inalienable right
>: to possess one. A human in a state of nature is not able to construct
>: (using technology currently in the public domain) a nuclear explosive.
>: Thus the ability to exercise is derived from participation in a social
>: body. Thus the right to exercise is alienable by that body. Only a
>: social organization with the ability to independently construct and
>: deploy such a device has the inalienable right to its possession.
>Actually, a human alone in nature has a better chance of getting
>the raw materials for an atomic bomb than for a gun! Uranium and
>plutonium exist in nature; gunpowder does not, to say nothing of
>refined and cast metals.
Which, I suppose, explains why somebody came up with firearms
four hundred (more?) years before the atom bomb, and gun powder easily
a thousand years before that.
Devious critters these humans... :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal University of Tennessee, Division of Continuing Education
E-Mail: ve...@gateway.ce.utk.edu
WYSIWYG = What You See Is What You Get
WYGIWYD = What You Get Is What You Deserve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ta...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
(Robert T. Weverka) wrote:
> In article <2qgrp5$6...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu>,
> <ta...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > 1 9mm Makarov (Chinese) pistol
> >
> > Ralph D. Taite
>
> what is a good american like you doing supporting foreign economies,
> when Americans make products just as good, at comparible prices.
Heh. Americans make *much* better weapons, but the prices are very
high. I would much prefer a Smith .357 Magnum or a Colt .45 Semiauto, but
foreign made weapons are cheaper and pretty accurate. Although you are
correct that there are some conservatives who are strong believers in
buying American, my belief is that consumers should choose the product
which best serves their needs and means. Having said that, if I have enough
money I buy American because depending on the product (the Macintosh is a
good product, for example), it may be the best out there.
Ralph D. Taite
President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
---
Gee, I miss the "last 12 years"
Broward Horne
In a previous article, ta...@grumpy.cc.utexas.edu () says:
>
> However, since you did, how DO you explain Clinton attempting to
>circumvent the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and
>seizures in Chicago housing projects? To search for... you guessed it...
>guns... Freedom, it was a nice concept while it lasted...
It's absolutely incredible that THIS many people could be
THIS stupid. It's beyond me. I mean, it's one thing to READ
about how Hitler took Germany, it's a WHOLE 'NOTHER BALLGAME to
be WATCHING it.
They're already moving to ban the POSSESSION of the Assault
Rifles that they JUST passed legislation on GUARANTEEING
a grandfather clause for existing weapons. It's INCREDIBLE.
They're working on a complete ban on handguns now, claiming that
"assault weapons weren't really the problem, etc, etc". How
STUPID can these people BE?
They've got military aircraft being issued ot the BATF ONE YEAr
after Waco. The Crime Bill brings in foreign mercenaries. Bill
has all but SAID that the Bill of Rights has to go.
Now I'm seeing a "National Identity Card".
What the hell is wrong with you people?
Don't you realize you're about to get your most LIBERAL WISH? :)
Uncle Sam is bankrupt, everybody in the WORLD knows he's bankrupt,
and these people are still clamoring to give their rights away for
FREE STUFF that doesn't even EXIST!
--
Why choose between being Red Two Terms for Clinton!
or being Dead? One in office...
With ClintonCare, you can be both! One in jail.
Duane Hentrich
> He doesn't have to join, he already IS the militia, according to
>Tile 10 of the United States code. ALL able bodies persons (which would
>include females under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment)
>are in the miltia, which includes you and me as well.
Confusion over the term militia abounds.
My favorite was the letter to the editor I read one day which explained
that in the event that our federal government neede to be overthrown
by force the National Guard would do it(supposedly because they are
the 'militia' of Constitutional fame).
Interestingly enough it was published on the aniversary of the Kent
State Four.
Glad I'm FROM Ohio.
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich ba...@Tymnet.Com It is not that the view
determines reality, only what we accept from reality and how we structure
it. I am realist enough to believe that in the long run reality gets its
own chance to accept or reject our various views. - Allen Newell
Joel Weisskopf
>: An inalienable natural right is derived from the ability of a natural
>: human to exercise. A human in a state of nature is able to construct
>: a repeating firearm and is therefore possessed of an inalienable right
>: to possess one. A human in a state of nature is not able to construct
>: (using technology currently in the public domain) a nuclear explosive.
>: Thus the ability to exercise is derived from participation in a social
>: body. Thus the right to exercise is alienable by that body. Only a
>: social organization with the ability to independently construct and
>: deploy such a device has the inalienable right to its possession.
>: -- Anthony L Kimball -- a...@think.com, a...@msc.edu, {uunet,harvard}!think!alk
>: "Claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence is not ground
>: for federal habeas relief." -US Supreme Court 1/93 (prisoner executed 5/93)
>: +Yeshua, the Messiah, suffered, died and rose to give you victory over death+
>Actually, a human alone in nature has a better chance of getting
>the raw materials for an atomic bomb than for a gun! Uranium and
>plutonium exist in nature; gunpowder does not, to say nothing of
>refined and cast metals.
Lloyd you just keep getting better and better. Did you get your
scienticific knowledge from saturday morning cartoons?
First off weapons grade uranium can not be found just by picking
up a few rocks. There are several different issotopes of uranium
and only a small % is actually the one that used in bombs.
Secondly, plutonium does not exist at all in nature and must be
manufactured by man.
Metallurgy has been around for serveral thousand years. Gun powder
is not very hard to make ( as a mater of fact I saw Captain Kurk
make it out of raw materials in a episode of Star Trek (for the hurmor
impaired)) out of a few naturally occuring raw materials.
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <2qdpek$7...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu>,
> <ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
>> 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.
> Odd, but the second and third words of the second amendment seem to
>read "well regulated." That suggests to me that, in the aim of such
>regulation, your government has much latitude as to how to ensure "the
>security of a free state" without infringing on "the right of the people to
>keep and bear arms."
It is important to recall that the use of he term "well regulated" here is an
archaic one meaning "well trained" or "well prepared".
--Brian
--
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "The children who know how to think for themselves, spoil |
| byo...@netcom.com| the harmony of the collective society that is coming, |
| US Networx, Inc. | where everyone (would be) interdependent" --John Dewey |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
no one of consequence
groups that have been in this thread yourself.. =)]
Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
]I challenge Mr. Taite to tell me where the power of Arms is even remotely
]discussed as a limiting factor for the ownership of weaponry.
]
]In fact, I think this willful perversion of the Constitution needs to be
]reversed.
]
]Ban the Bomb? Heck, I want a Bomb in every house! Why should we stop at
]guns? Just think of the deterrence to rob a house if you know you could be
]reduced to your component atoms on the spot!
Why do certain gun grabbers have no sense of scale when it comes to weapons?
Can Stilt Man stop attacking strawmen? [Where have RKBA advocates talked
of putting Bombs in every house, hmm?]
By 'Bomb' I presume you mean nuclear weapons, right?
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|
|Member Lovely Angels Fan Club/Fire Support Team/Cleanup Crew |
|"Never pilot a mass produced Mobile Suit design"- Anaheim Custom MS's |
|Witty remarks always come to mind 20 minutes after sending your article|
no one of consequence
]mic...@brain.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) says:
]>John Angus:
]>>
]>>So join the militia, Ralpher, otherwise give up your guns.
]>>
]>
]> He doesn't have to join, he already IS the militia, according to
]>Tile 10 of the United States code. ALL able bodies persons (which would
]>include females under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment)
]>are in the miltia, which includes you and me as well.
]>
]> Ergo, it is ILLEGAL for the government to disarm a legally constituted
]>militia.
]>
]Well, tell you what, then, if you want to keep exactly in tune with
]what the authors of the 2nd amendment had in mind, fine. Every able-bodied
]person will be permitted to keep...a musket. Or however many muskets
]you want. There you go. No violation of the constitution.
More like they wanted every abled-bodied person to be able to equip
themselves as an infantry soldier. Muskets are obsolete but modern small
arms are not.
]Happy?
No, afraid you might apply the technology argument to the other rights we
have and limit those too. But you're posting from Canada so why should
you care?
Nosy
Note followups.
<In article <940507#SHAZBOT#203829...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> nm...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
<In article <2qgrp5$6...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu> ta...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu writes:
<>
<> That SKS is deadly accurate. Isn't it one of the ones Comrade Klinton
<>banned?
The SKS is not banned, because KKKlintoon doesn't want to
stop the flow of Chinese goods manufactured by slave labor
into the US.
< Indeed, a "deadly accurate" gun. It's killed two of my friends so far,
< and injured three others. Lovely weapon, yes.
The firearm just up and shot five people, all by itself?
I'm amazed.
<(Go to a library, and do a keyword search for "Simon's Rock" in their
< periodicals database if you want a full explanation.
But that refers to an incident in which a person violated
Federal law and misused a firearm, not an incident in which
a firearm, of its' own volition, killed anyone.
< It's why
< Massachusetts has passed yet another round of gun laws, this time finally
< eliminating that damn reciprocity loophole.)
I'm sure it will stop all those gang types in Boston from
getting firearms.
Again, note followups.
Tom Revay
nm...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
>In article <2qhfv2$7...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu> ta...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>>
>> What is a KT? Who was/is Gene McCarthy?
>>
>> Ralph D. Taite
>> President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
>?! The "President" of the "Institute for Conservative Policy Review"
>doesn't know who Gene McCarthy is?!
Yeah, I though that was kinda ... interesting ... myself.
KT, I dunno. It's an army term, I suppose.
Eugene McCarthy was a college professor, who described himself as a poet,
and who ran for President in 1968. He threatened to win the New Hampshire
primary, as a Democrat. Being that there was a Democrat in the White House,
this is a surprise -- it was much more of a shock than Pat Buchanan's good
showing against Bush in that state in 1992.
McCarthy was really a single-issue candidate -- stopping the war was his
issue.
Of course, on the right, there was George Wallace, running on a Law & Order/
State's Rights platform. This was the same George Wallace who "stood in
the schoolhouse door" to prevent James Merideth from enrolling at the Univ.
of Alabama, several years earlier, when Wallace was Governor of that state.
As you might recall, Alabama's primary public university was white-only
at the time, Meredeth was Black, and it took intervention from the Kennedy
White House to get Meredeth enrolled.
The far-right-wingers tended to vote for Wallace. This left Johnson,
and McCarthy -- I don't remember if Bobby Kennedy had decided to run at
that time, or not. In any case, McCarthy made a good showing, coming in
better than Wallace.
Also, with the Vietnamese lunar New Year, came the Tet Offensive, shortly
before the primary. In this campaign, nearly every US installation, and
base was attacked by North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong forces. The US
Embassy was under siege, for a time. In the end, the NVA and VC lost
heavily -- but the fact that they were able to mount a simultaneous,
wide-scale attack, after absorbing three-plus years of punishing bombings
and numerous campaigns to win the "hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese
people (thereby deminishing the support for the VC, went the logic), proved
to Johnson that the generals weren't in touch with the whole story, or
weren't giving it to him, in any case.
In the face of this -- military stalemate, political difficulties -- Johnson
had to realize that his goal of being the "Great Society" President was
going terriby awry. He was tied to Vietnam. And so, he announced that he
would not continue to run for President, in a speech made in March, 1968.
McCarthy's pressure on him, and his ability to raise support on one single
issue -- stopping the war -- surely had an effect on Johnson.
BTW -- you're from Texas, Ralph, home of LBJ. You should know about the
guy. If you don't, then I strongly recommend you read about him. He was
a particularly interesting character, as a Congressman, and then, as
President. In some ways, he really did seem to have the best interests
of the people in mind -- he managed to get a large portion of very rural
Texas electrified, and he managed, also, to find money for populist
Democrats to run for Congressional seats that had been held largely by
ranching an oil interests in your state. Because of this, the Democratic
party in Texas owed a lot to the guy. Whether you like him, or not, he
is too big a character to ignore.
...................Tom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freshman: "You say 'rm -rf $HOME' to play Trek?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd R. Parker
: In article <2qjgmk$m...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> lpa...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
: >Anthony L. Kimball (a...@et.msc.edu) wrote:
: >: An inalienable natural right is derived from the ability of a natural
: >: human to exercise. A human in a state of nature is able to construct
: >: a repeating firearm and is therefore possessed of an inalienable right
: >: to possess one. A human in a state of nature is not able to construct
: >: (using technology currently in the public domain) a nuclear explosive.
: >: Thus the ability to exercise is derived from participation in a social
: >: body. Thus the right to exercise is alienable by that body. Only a
: >: social organization with the ability to independently construct and
: >: deploy such a device has the inalienable right to its possession.
: >Actually, a human alone in nature has a better chance of getting
: >the raw materials for an atomic bomb than for a gun! Uranium and
: >plutonium exist in nature; gunpowder does not, to say nothing of
: >refined and cast metals.
: Which, I suppose, explains why somebody came up with firearms
: four hundred (more?) years before the atom bomb, and gun powder easily
: a thousand years before that.
: Devious critters these humans... :-)
Let's hope you aren't a science major, David! The science and
technology of nuclear weapons wasn't understood then.
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
: David Veal University of Tennessee, Division of Continuing Education
: E-Mail: ve...@gateway.ce.utk.edu
: WYSIWYG = What You See Is What You Get
: WYGIWYD = What You Get Is What You Deserve
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like you need some of that "continuing education"!
David Veal
>David Veal (VE...@gateway.ce.utk.edu) wrote:
>: In article <2qjgmk$m...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> lpa...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu
>(Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>: >Anthony L. Kimball (a...@et.msc.edu) wrote:
>: >: An inalienable natural right is derived from the ability of a natural
>: >: human to exercise. A human in a state of nature is able to construct
>: >: a repeating firearm and is therefore possessed of an inalienable right
>: >: to possess one. A human in a state of nature is not able to construct
>: >: (using technology currently in the public domain) a nuclear explosive.
>: >: Thus the ability to exercise is derived from participation in a social
>: >: body. Thus the right to exercise is alienable by that body. Only a
>: >: social organization with the ability to independently construct and
>: >: deploy such a device has the inalienable right to its possession.
>: >Actually, a human alone in nature has a better chance of getting
>: >the raw materials for an atomic bomb than for a gun! Uranium and
>: >plutonium exist in nature; gunpowder does not, to say nothing of
>: >refined and cast metals.
>: Which, I suppose, explains why somebody came up with firearms
>: four hundred (more?) years before the atom bomb, and gun powder easily
>: a thousand years before that.
>: Devious critters these humans... :-)
>Let's hope you aren't a science major, David! The science and
>technology of nuclear weapons wasn't understood then.
I don't imagine either of us would impress anybody seriously
considering building a nuclear bomb.
Exactly what does one do with the "raw materials" of a nuclear
bomb if one doesn't understand the technology of nuclear weapons?
And sulfar, charcoal, and saltpeter seem to show up a lot in history.
(That's the makings of gun powder, you know). You'd think that if
fissionable material was all that common somebody'd have smacked them
together hard enough to go boom at some point before the 1940s.
In a purely practical sense, I think I'd trust primitive technology to
make a metal tube for a gun before I'd trust it to craft an implosion
for a nuclear bomb.
>: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>: David Veal University of Tennessee, Division of Continuing Education
>: E-Mail: ve...@gateway.ce.utk.edu
>: WYSIWYG = What You See Is What You Get
>: WYGIWYD = What You Get Is What You Deserve
>: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sounds like you need some of that "continuing education"!
This is a silly question (but then again, this is a silly discussion)
what is the value of having "raw materials" for something if you can't
turn them into it?
Mark O. Wilson
| Gag me with a 30-O6 cartridge. I'm a teen. I'm licensed to hunt and
|have fired several types of firearms (I have yet to buy my own) and I see
|absolutely no need for semi-automatic assault rifles in the "civilized" U.S.
|society.
Your right in a civilized society such guns would not be neccessary.
Unfortunately it has been a long time since society has been civil.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Mark O. Wilson
|Actually, a human alone in nature has a better chance of getting
|the raw materials for an atomic bomb than for a gun! Uranium and
|plutonium exist in nature; gunpowder does not, to say nothing of
|refined and cast metals.
Lloyd, are you going out of your way to embarrass yourself today.
You state that refined metals do not exist, yet uranium does.
Uranium ore is of no use in build a bomb, even refined uranium is
useless. It has to be enriched to seperate out the isotopes. Do you really
that enrichment is easier than refining iron.
BTW, you do not need highly refined ore to make a gun.
While gun powder may not technically exist in nature, all of its components
do. And they are trivially easy to get.
BTW, plutonium does not exist in nature. It has to be created in a reactor.
Finally even if you did get enough enriched uranium to create a bomb,
you still need the specialized explosives and the electronics. You don't
find transistors lying around on the beach you know.
R Bryner
: In article <1994May9.0...@aber.ac.uk>, drh92 <dr...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
: >There is a second reason for banning asault weapons. In any shootout, you
: >naturally want the police to win.
: I nominate this for the most idiotic gun-grabber comment of the
: week.
Lets see how it compares with some other quotes form history.
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve
the State."
-- Heinrich Himmler
"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS,
SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of
campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of
the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps
his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national
government."
-- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and
the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon
of democracy... If guns are outlawed, only the government will have
guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired
servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I
intend to be among the outlaws."
-- Edward Abbey
"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in
their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of
arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection
of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. Therefore, the heads
of provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all
the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government."
-- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 29, 1558, Japan.
"I do believe that where there is a choice only between
cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."
--Gandhi
Peter Murphy
I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. Remember, gunpowder consists of
sulfur, saltpetre and charcoal. Saltpetre can be found in the ground, and
charcoal can be obtained from burning wood. It is a little bit more diffi-
cult to obtain sulfur, but it can be done. (I don't know how myself, but
I believe it can be obtained from lava with a little bit of chemistry.)
As for the gun itself... well I guess there exists gunsmithing courses
to do that sort of thing. But they did make decent guns in the 19th
century, so it isn't that hard to do...
But comparing this with uranium and plutonium ... sheesh. Remember,
plutonium is pretty rare in nature (i.e. rarer than iridium), so you'd
want to find Uranium ore. You have to get the stuff from pitchblende, and
there's a few steps you have to do. But assuming you've got a block of
Uranium, can you make a bomb? No. Natural Uranium consists of mostly U-238,
which isn't fissionable. You have to get the U-235 out, and you can't use
simple chemistry. There's several methods for doing this; one I remember
is to vaporize UF_6, and centrifuge it until the U-238 and U-235 separate.
Unfortunately, this is 20th century technology.
Finally, you have to know how to detonate it. If you just put two
pieces together, it will just blow apart, causing the reaction to stop
before it's conclusion. You need a lot of explosives to get the implosion
aligned correctly. And even Feymann took a bit of time to work it out...
=======================================================
| Peter Murphy. <p...@maths.uq.oz.au>. Department of |
| Mathematics - University of Queensland, Australia. |
-------------------------------------------------------
| "What will you do? What will you do? When a hundred |
| thousand Morriseys come rushing over the hill?" |
| - Mr. Floppy. |
=======================================================
--
=======================================================
| Peter Murphy. <p...@maths.uq.oz.au>. Department of |
| Mathematics - University of Queensland, Australia. |
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Schwartz
|> Newsgroups reduced, by order of the net.users.who.must.
|>
|> nm...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
|>
|> >In article <2qhfv2$7...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu> ta...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu writes:
|> >>
|> >> What is a KT? Who was/is Gene McCarthy?
|> >>
|> >> Ralph D. Taite
|> >> President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
|>
|> >?! The "President" of the "Institute for Conservative Policy Review"
|> >doesn't know who Gene McCarthy is?!
|>
|> Yeah, I though that was kinda ... interesting ... myself.
|>
|> KT, I dunno. It's an army term, I suppose.
|>
|> Eugene McCarthy was a college professor, who described himself as a poet,
|> and who ran for President in 1968. He threatened to win the New Hampshire
|> primary, as a Democrat. Being that there was a Democrat in the White House,
|> this is a surprise -- it was much more of a shock than Pat Buchanan's good
|> showing against Bush in that state in 1992.
|>
|> McCarthy was really a single-issue candidate -- stopping the war was his
|> issue.
LBJ announced he "would not seek, nor accept the nomination of his party"
in 1968. McCarthy did not run in a single primary against Johnson.
Cheers.
[ snip ]
Barry McMorland
> In article <CpFp1...@nrtpa22.bnr.ca>,
> Pete Lienemann x255-3385 <cnc115@nrtpa059> wrote:
> >ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
> > [some stuff]
> >Ralph - I've got my three. How many do you have?
>
> 2 12-gauge shotguns (with 00 buck and 000 buck)
> 1 SKS 7.62 semi-auto rifle (w/2 20 shot clips)
> 1 AR-7 Survival .22LR (can be collapsed and carried in a backpack)
> 1 .380 Lorcin pistol
> 1 .357 Magnum Ruger Blackhawk (single action) revolver
> 1 .22LR Jennings pistol
> 1 9mm Makarov (Chinese) pistol
>
> >Pete
>
> That SKS is deadly accurate. Isn't it one of the ones Comrade Klinton
> banned?
What's the matter, did Lorena Bobbit cut your dick off too?
______________________________________________________________________________
| All e-mail to the following address| They keep you doped with religion and |
|____________________________________| sex and TV, 'til you think you're so |
| slo...@latenite.proteous.qc.ca | clever and classless and free. But |
| -----------------------------------| you're still f*****g peasants as far |
| slo...@cam.org | as I can see... |
|_Fidonet: Barry McMorland 1:167/165_|________________John Lennon____________|
John Wong
an asinine idea. But this is not the forum. Take your discussion
to talk.politics.guns!! Stop wasting bandwidth.
--
-JW
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
John Wong
john...@qmail4.sp.trw.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Lloyd R. Parker
: In article <2qjgmk$m...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>,
Plutonium is formed when neutrons from fissioning U235 hits an atom
of U238; the atom undergoes 2 beta decays, forming first Np and
then Pu. So if you've got some fissioning U235, you've got some
Pu. And there was a natural U reactor in Gabon, in Africa --
enough U washed to one site than a chain reaction (sustained, not
branching, so no explosion) occured thousands of years ago.
Making the refined metals and casting them in the shape needed for
a gun (much less a repeating rifle, as someone mentioned) would be
awfully hard for one person to do alone in "nature".
Heather Betel
>In article <2qjpsd$c...@ionews.io.org> jose...@io.org (Joseph Bou-Younes) writes:
>>In article <2qdpek$7...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu>,
>> <ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
>
>>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>>>State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>
>> Odd, but the second and third words of the second amendment seem to
>>read "well regulated." That suggests to me that, in the aim of such
>>regulation, your government has much latitude as to how to ensure "the
>>security of a free state" without infringing on "the right of the people to
>>keep and bear arms."
>
>It is important to recall that the use of he term "well regulated" here is an
>archaic one meaning "well trained" or "well prepared".
So like, does this include atomic bombs, chemical weapons, or just uzis?
Heather.
Mark Klemkosky~
In article <2qrc4q$b...@newswire.etdesg.TRW.COM>, johnw@cuba (John Wong) writes:
> Hey!! I love discussion about gun control and why I think it's
> an asinine idea. But this is not the forum. Take your discussion
> to talk.politics.guns!! Stop wasting bandwidth.
If you love the discussion, what's your problem? It is relavant to this
newsgroup in the sense that Clinton (once again) is doing his best to
reduce the freedoms available in this country. I'm sorry you have a
problem looking at all the facets of this newgroup...
> --
> -JW
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> John Wong
> john...@qmail4.sp.trw.com
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
--
All opinions presented are my own and do not
necessarily reflect the views of my company.
"Looks like it's amateur night in the White House again."
- John McCain, Arizona Senator in reference to
the Clinton administration's foreign policy.
"Impeach Clinton and her husband..."
- Rush "I'm laughing my way to the bank" Limbaugh
"I want to use Hillary's commodity investor..."
- Me
Barry Von Brunt
:>>read "well regulated." That suggests to me that, in the aim of such
:>>regulation, your government has much latitude as to how to ensure "the
:>>security of a free state" without infringing on "the right of the people to
:>>keep and bear arms."
:>
:>It is important to recall that the use of he term "well regulated" here is an
:>archaic one meaning "well trained" or "well prepared".
:
:So like, does this include atomic bombs, chemical weapons, or just uzis?
:
:Heather.
Good question Heather.
Like, what do you think it means?
no one of consequence
]byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
]>jose...@io.org (Joseph Bou-Younes) writes:
]>> Odd, but the second and third words of the second amendment seem to
]>>read "well regulated." That suggests to me that, in the aim of such
]>>regulation, your government has much latitude as to how to ensure "the
]>>security of a free state" without infringing on "the right of the
]>>people to keep and bear arms."
]>
]>It is important to recall that the use of he term "well regulated" here
]>is an archaic one meaning "well trained" or "well prepared".
]
]So like, does this include atomic bombs, chemical weapons, or just uzis?
So like, can gun grabbers make an argument without bringing in the
nuclear strawman? *sigh*
Please explain the relationship between NBC weapons <not the network>
and small arms. Bonus question: define the term assault weapon and give
your reasons for that definition. Open your bluebook and start the test.
Barry McMorland
: In article <CpGJr...@metronet.com>,
: Michael Kalen Smith <mks...@metronet.com> wrote:
: >I was part of a KT in Vietnam who later supported Gene
: >McCarthy for president.
: What is a KT? Who was/is Gene McCarthy?
: Ralph D. Taite
: President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
ta...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu wrote:
: In article <CpGJr...@metronet.com>,
: Michael Kalen Smith <mks...@metronet.com> wrote:
: >I was part of a KT in Vietnam who later supported Gene
: >McCarthy for president.
: What is a KT? Who was/is Gene McCarthy?
: Ralph D. Taite
: President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
KT = Kill Team or possibly an advisor to a (Koumintang <sp?> tribal group in
Vietnam recruited to fight for Mom and apple pie.
Gene McCarthy = Eugene McCarthy. An unsuccessful presidential candidate
in the early 70's.
Pretty pathetic there, Taite. You claim to be President of some wrong wing
political group and it takes a foreigner to clue you in to your country's
history? What the hell *do* you review? Your navel?
______________________________________________________________________________
| | They keep you doped with religion and |
| All e-mail to the following address| sex and TV, 'til you think you're so |
| slo...@latenite.proteous.qc.ca | clever and classless and free. But |
| -----------------------------------| you're still f*****g peasants as far |
| slo...@cam.org | as I can see... |
|_Fidonet: Barry McMorland 1:167/165_|________________John Lennon____________|
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| | They keep you doped with religion and |
| All e-mail to the following address| sex and TV, 'til you think you're so |
Barry Von Brunt
>Vietnam recruited to fight for Mom and apple pie.
Kuomintang Tribal Group? I think you mean Hmong. Kuomintang is the ruling
majority in Taiwan.
Karl A
lpa...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>
> : Lloyd you just keep getting better and better. Did you get your
> : scienticific knowledge from saturday morning cartoons?
>
> : First off weapons grade uranium can not be found just by picking
> : up a few rocks. There are several different issotopes of uranium
> : and only a small % is actually the one that used in bombs.
> : Secondly, plutonium does not exist at all in nature and must be
> : manufactured by man.
>
> : Metallurgy has been around for serveral thousand years. Gun powder
> : is not very hard to make ( as a mater of fact I saw Captain Kurk
> : make it out of raw materials in a episode of Star Trek (for the hurmor
> : impaired)) out of a few naturally occuring raw materials.
>
> : jo...@htc.com
>
>
>
> Plutonium is formed when neutrons from fissioning U235 hits an atom
> of U238; the atom undergoes 2 beta decays, forming first Np and
> then Pu.
Well, sort of. The actual reaction is a neutron from fisioning U235
strikes a U238 nucleus, forming U239 (and releasing a gamma ray, I
beleive). The U239 undergoes 2 beta decays (one to form Np239) to form
Pu239.
> So if you've got some fissioning U235, you've got some
> Pu.
But THAT'S the key: you need U235, which is almost non-existant in
nature (less than .6%) , at least relatively to U238. And then Pu239
has a half-life of only 10^4 years (10,000), which isn't very long in
geological terms.
> And there was a natural U reactor in Gabon, in Africa --
> enough U washed to one site than a chain reaction (sustained, not
> branching, so no explosion) occured thousands of years ago.
Actually, what was found was natural accuring U238 and almost NO U235.
It was the depletion of U235 that provided the clue that a "natural"
reactor existed there. As far as I remember, no plutonium was found.
I beleive that it was also calculated that the "reaction" terminated a
few 10s to 100s of thousands of years ago.
And that still leaves open the critical question of timing, not to
mention processing all the raw materials necessary to build a bomb. I'd
LOVE to see some backwoods type construct a Klystron trigger...
>
> Making the refined metals and casting them in the shape needed for
> a gun (much less a repeating rifle, as someone mentioned) would be
> awfully hard for one person to do alone in "nature".
The old blunderbuss of years ago wasn't very refined. A lot of early
guns were extremely crude in their manufacture, consisting mostely of
wood and very poor steel. That's one of the reason the barrels were so
damn thick (not to mention damn heavy). Also, a flintlock type gun has
very few moving parts, all existing on the outside of the weapon. Not
very difficult to make.
Karl A
*********************************************************************
This sig contains no violence and is approved by the Attorny General.
BFD...
Robert Nehls
: : | Proponents of gun control are trying to push it closer to sticks and stones.
: : | Opponents of gun control are trying to push it closer to atomic bombs.
: : | Once you admit that you aren't advocating personal ownership of all
: : | arms including atomic bombs, your argument about some kind of absolute
: : | right becomes rediculous.
: : An inalienable natural right is derived from the ability of a natural
: : human to exercise. A human in a state of nature is able to construct
: : a repeating firearm and is therefore possessed of an inalienable right
: : to possess one. A human in a state of nature is not able to construct
: : (using technology currently in the public domain) a nuclear explosive.
: : Thus the ability to exercise is derived from participation in a social
: : body. Thus the right to exercise is alienable by that body. Only a
: : social organization with the ability to independently construct and
: : deploy such a device has the inalienable right to its possession.
: : -- Anthony L Kimball -- a...@think.com, a...@msc.edu, {uunet,harvard}!think!alk
: : "Claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence is not ground
: : for federal habeas relief." -US Supreme Court 1/93 (prisoner executed 5/93)
: : +Yeshua, the Messiah, suffered, died and rose to give you victory over death+
: Actually, a human alone in nature has a better chance of getting
: the raw materials for an atomic bomb than for a gun! Uranium and
: plutonium exist in nature; gunpowder does not, to say nothing of
: refined and cast metals.
Oh my God, Lloyd you really are stupid. Gunpower is very easy to make. And
steel can be forged. Uranium has to be purified and placed in a metal
casing. Expolsives are then used to force two halves of the bomb together
to form a critical mass. Not only that, but you better have some sort of
remote detonation device if you plan on making another one.
I guess because atom bombs are so easy to make, that gunpowder and guns were
developed first just because they represented a greater challenge, right?
I'm looking for smileys Lloyd, and I dont see any in your post. And you
keep saying you're a scientist, no correction, a professional scientist.
Did I misread that? Did you really mean scientologist? No, you couldn't
mean that either, even they wouldn't be dumb enough to post what you did.
--
Bob Nehls Sr. Design Engineer
rn1...@sage.medtronic.com
Working Towards Full Life...
These are my views, not my employers.
Barbara Saunders
>In article <2qjpsd$c...@ionews.io.org> jose...@io.org (Joseph Bou-Younes) writes:
>>In article <2qdpek$7...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu>,
>> <ta...@foghorn.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution [1791]
>
>>> 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.
>
>> Odd, but the second and third words of the second amendment seem to
>>read "well regulated." That suggests to me that, in the aim of such
>>regulation, your government has much latitude as to how to ensure "the
>>security of a free state" without infringing on "the right of the people to
>>keep and bear arms."
>
>It is important to recall that the use of he term "well regulated" here is an
>archaic one meaning "well trained" or "well prepared".
>
>--Brian
>--
well-prepared, well-trained, or well-regulated.
>
Stilt Man
>So like, can gun grabbers make an argument without bringing in the
>nuclear strawman? *sigh*
>
>Please explain the relationship between NBC weapons <not the network>
>and small arms. Bonus question: define the term assault weapon and give
>your reasons for that definition. Open your bluebook and start the test.
Answer the question.
The Constitution says "arms," correct? It says the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, correct? You say that's an
absolute right, correct?
Then why is it that you can't have nukes in this country? I think it's
positively unfair! There's no distinction of firepower in there, it simply
says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It *is*
being infringed! You're not allowed to have nukes!
If you're going to defend it as an absolute right, then this is what you
are saying. Period. You can't tell me that nukes don't count and that
assault rifles do. This is a matter of doing exactly what those you deem
"gun grabbers" do. You're limiting it based upon power. I want to know
why it is that you're willing to skimp on the absolute right to keep and
bear arms.
You know, I think you're really a closet gun grabber in disguise . . .
<getting out whistle> PHWEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!! LOOK OUT! WE'VE GOT ANOTHER
ONE OF THOSE *SUBVERSIVES* HERE!!!
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
To fib is archaic, to flip, devious.
--basic motto for George Bush
Aldo Tartaglini
>>It is important to recall that the use of he term "well regulated" here is an
>>archaic one meaning "well trained" or "well prepared".
>>
>>--Brian
>>--
>Still, any idiot buying a gun with no training whatsoever required is not
>well-prepared, well-trained, or well-regulated.
The 2nd Amendment does not specify any prerequisites to gun ownership; it
merely affirms a pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms.
If the Framers had intended for training to be a prerequisite to gun
ownership, they would have said so in the 2nd (e.g., "...the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, once they have trained in the proper use
of said Arms, shall not be infringed").
Since the ostensible purpose of the 2nd is to ensure that people will
always have available the means to overthrow a tyrannical government,
it would be unwise to make training a prerequisite to gun ownership. Who
would be in charge of said training? The government. If the government so
desires, it can make "training" so onerous as to effectively prevent
civilian gun ownership.
This is already the case in some jurisdictions (c.f. New York City's
extremely burdensome requirements, which basically limit concealed carry
of firearms to the police and the politically well-connected -- hardly what
the Framers intended).
I am far less concerned about civilian "idiots" who own guns than I am
about government "idiots" who have repeatedly demonstrated their
willingness to misuse guns for the organized oppression of the people they
are supposed to serve (c.f. the Weaver Massacre, the Waco Massacre, and
the Dirty 30 police corruption case in NYC for evidence in favor of the
proposition that the only useful form of gun control is that which places
limits on the availability of firearms to *the government* without
infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms).
A.T. <disclaimer: these opinions are mine, not my employer's>
=======================================================================
| The Komrade Klinton Klan: Public Enemy #1 + The Waco Massacre: |
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Appoint an Independent |
| They really *feel* our pain - NOT! ++++++++ Prosecutor, Mr. Clinton |
=======================================================================
r...@nosubdomain.nodomain
Well !!! ;-)
the ability of you americans to froth at the mouth on the subject of the second
amendment is impressive
matched only by your ability to kill each other, deliberately and accidently,
with the 'Arms',
an expensive way to preserve democracy 8-), currently in the
tens of thousands per year,
but hey you're free right ;-} and your government
is very careful about your rights and liberties, yeah, sure 8-}
so why the constant frothing on the third part of the amendment
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
while ignoring the first part
A well regulated Militia
ie doesn't it say the USA needs an army !!!!!!!
and maybe a National Guard ( to use your terminology)
or stretching it a bit, an armed police force
and the rest just says everyone has a right to participate ( including women ;-) )
and use the Weapons/Arms
otherwise as someone said Nuclear Arms in every home is allowed by this
amendment !!!!!!! 88-)
and finally a philosophical question
do required responsiblities infringe rights
ie is the responsibility to bear Arms in a careful, well-educated, trust-worthy,
prescribed way an infringement of the right to bear Arms in a Militia ??
without context, its all monkeys on the typewriters ;-)
Robin
ps are Arms defined in the USA constitution, hmmmmm
Richard Foy
Very good Barbara.
IMO requireing people to have training as a condition of buying guns
might be a good move. If that were coupled with allowing people to
carry concealed weapons it might actually reduce the crime rate.
--
"The 1970's must be the year when America pays its debts to the
past by reclaiming the purity of its air, its water and our
living environment. It it literally now or never."
-Richard Nixon
Richard Foy rf...@netcom.com Redondo Beach, CA, USA
Keith Braunwalder
Very good point Barbara. Certainly one difference between the US and
Switzerland is not automatic weapon availability, but training in the use
of said arms. So instead of a ridiculous ban that effects only the law
abiding, how about training paid for with a tax on the weapons ?
Keith
: >
Keith Braunwalder
: Well !!! ;-)
: A well regulated Militia
Speaking of monkeys who type.......
: Robin
Keith
: ps are Arms defined in the USA constitution, hmmmmm
Alan Bomberger
|> In article <2qt1de$a...@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu> wol...@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu (no one of consequence) writes:
|> >So like, can gun grabbers make an argument without bringing in the
|> >nuclear strawman? *sigh*
|> >
|> >Please explain the relationship between NBC weapons <not the network>
|> >and small arms. Bonus question: define the term assault weapon and give
|> >your reasons for that definition. Open your bluebook and start the test.
|>
|> Answer the question.
|>
|> The Constitution says "arms," correct? It says the right of the people to
|> keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, correct? You say that's an
|> absolute right, correct?
|>
|> Then why is it that you can't have nukes in this country? I think it's
|> positively unfair! There's no distinction of firepower in there, it simply
|> says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It *is*
|> being infringed! You're not allowed to have nukes!
I'm not sure but what is controlled is the fissionable material, not the
weapon. But, I agree that this is certainly a good point. I think it
is exactly like the first ammendment limits to yelling "fire" in a
crowded theater. And, yes, it does raise the issue about "absolute"
interpretations of the second ammendment.
I counter.
No anti-gun [nut] has yet to demonstrate or even argue that there
is any "greater good" in banning guns as one can argue about
yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Yes, we have not eliminated people yelling "fire". There was
actually no need to as there is no profit in it. It is just
an example (and a "silly" one). Those who would do it will
do it illegal or not!
Banning alchohol did no good. Banning drugs does no good. Banning
guns will do no good. The sad but simple truth is that criminals do
not obey the law. Shocking! This is round 3 of major bans. What
will be the impact.
1) We have created employment
A whole new industry of high paying jobs in the gun running
business. A wonderful opportunity for the "mob" to diversify.
2) We will start a War On Guns to control the gun running and spend
billions of dollars on new law enforcement. More employment and
higher taxes.
3) The crime rate will increase because now the guns used in
drug crimes are worth as much as the drugs. New levels of
violence will result. More jails and higher taxes.
4) We will jail more "new criminals" and advance against more
cults as fearful groups stockpile illegal weapons. More
jails and higher taxes.
5) We advance the political careers of the DiFi's of the world
who will move on to greater statist activities heady with
the success. More programs and higher taxes.
6) We have cheapened the Constitution. The phrase "That is
a Constitutional right" carries less weight than it did before.
Someday the document will fade into oblivion as just another
historical document. I hope the next time someone infringes
just a little bit on the First Ammendment, defenders will
remember how the Second was eroded (This is not new!)
7) No one is any safer. Bill Clinton is still protected by
illegal weapons, but you and I are now at a disadvantage
in arms when the bad guys sweep your neighborhood. Why not?
The chances of meeting equal firepower are diminished.
How anyone can see any good in this gun ban is incomprehensible to me.
Why do they think there will be fewer drive-by shootings. Do they
really believe that those guns will become unavailable? Why? Do they
believe their child is safe from drugs because drugs are illegal. Even
safer? If they do, they are delusional!
Peace
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
jt -- John Thompson
have to do with
alt.feminism
soc.men
soc.women
alt.feminism.individualism
It's shorter than I've seen others on (at least alt.whistle-blowers is gone),
but this has nothing to do with feminism.
Robert Hartman (har...@informix.com) wrote:
: al...@delphi.oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger) writes:
: >No anti-gun [nut] has yet to demonstrate or even argue that there
: >is any "greater good" in banning guns as one can argue about
: >yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
: Well, I'm not sure that anyone would call me an anti-gun-nut [TM],
: but even I can see a "greater good" in restricting the traffic in
: assault-class weapons, and perhaps concealable weapons as well.
What is an "assault-class" weapon? I know what a fully-automatic
weapon is, and I know what a semi-automatic weapon is. I also know
that a gun, when used to propel little pieces of metal at someone,
is being used for an assault. What is it about a bayonet mount, and
a large clip, and a silencer, and who knows what else, that makes it
an "assault weapon"???
: It is the same "greater good" that was cited to proscribe yelling
: "fire" in a crowded theater from the protections of free speech.
: Allowing either action would put innocent lives in unnecessary
: jeopardy. When your right to own weapons starts to interfere with
: my right to live my life unmolested by you (or the criminal who
: breaks into your house to steal your "street-sweeper"), I have every
: right to ask the legislature to impose some regulations.
Well, you _may_ have a point with the criminal who steals my hypothetical
gun (I don't have one for him to steal), but how does
- my right to own weapons interfere with your right to live....
- my actually owning weapons interfere with your right to live....
If I _USE_ my hypothetical weapon, then I can see it interfering with your
right to live unmolested, but then either I am breaking the law, or you
broke the law and I'm defeinding my property against you. How does my
owning something interfere with your rights?
: Having said that, I have tremendous qualms about restricting access
: to weapons that give citizens a fighting chance at defending themselves
: against the government. On the other hand, the huge stockpile those
: Branch Davidians collected didn't do them much good.
I won't claim to know the Truth(tm), but check the case -- how many weapons
actually made up that huge stockpile? Also, maybe that should lead you to
conclude that gun owners are not going to go blasting away at the govt or
at their neighbors, even if they DO have a huge stockpile.
: I thought that the intent behind the 2nd Amendment was to allow the
: States to protect themselves against the Federal government. But I
: guess the Civil war pretty-well put that option to rest.
It doesn't refer to the right of the states to keep and bear arms.
: If you are qualified by military or some equivalent training to
: competently handle an automatic weapon, and have proper facilities to
: keep it from being stolen, I have no problem with you owning as many
: as you can safely store.
We aren't talking automatic weapons. They already are illegal unless you
have a special permit. (Not having one, nor being in the NRA, nor looking
up the necessary stuff, I can't say how strict the licensing is.)
: >Why do they think there will be fewer drive-by shootings. Do they
: >really believe that those guns will become unavailable? Why?
: Yes. Supply and demand. They will get more expensive. You won't be
: able to advertize for them. Collectors will have to be discrete about
: what they've got. Once the "criminal" market is saturated, demand will
: die. Before the ban, any "collector" could get one, tell all his friends,
: watch it get stolen, and go buy another. Guns aren't consumables like
: alcohol and drugs. Bans don't work on consumables, but they may well
: work on reducing the traffic in durable items like assault weapons.
You addressed the question of traffic in the illegal gun market, but you
did so by positing a time when the "criminal" market is saturated. Kind of
by definition, any drive-by shooting is a criminal act. If the criminal
market is saturated, why won't the criminals have the guns? How does
limiting the supply meet the needs of those who use them illegally make
the number of illegal acts decrease? Also, although the guns are more
durable than, for instance, drugs, if there is a War Against Guns (WAG),
there will be a draining effect, and therefore, there will be a market
for supplying them (again, to the criminals). This should leave plenty
of room open to assault the 4th Amendment a bit more, and also to abuse
the 1st, the 2nd (get handguns now), and who knows what else.
--
-- jt --
John Thompson
Senior Design Automation Engineer / Sys-Admin On The Loose
Honeywell, SSEC
Plymouth, MN 55441
thom...@pan.ssec.honeywell.com ...regardless of what News may say
*************************************************************************
* If this were official Honeywell information, it'd be marked *
* "Proprietary and Confidential" and you wouldn't be reading it. *
*************************************************************************
Dave Nelson
|> The fact that you are not allowed to "have" nukes does not
|> imply an infringement on your right to "keep and bear arms".
|> No individual person is CAPABLE of keeping or bearing a "nuke".
|> Any nuclear bomb has to be borne by a plane, [snip]
Nice try, but WRONG. I've read or heard of numerous examples of
very small nuclear weapons, small enough to fit one in a piece of
carry-on luggage - about 14" x 9" x 22". Remember, they used to
put them in field artillery shells, back in the 50's - 60's, and by
the late 80's warheads & yields had gotten a lot smaller. So did
the size.
|> The right to keep and bear arms is an indvidual right.
WRONG. Read Miller vs. the United States. The 2nd amendment is
about militias, not individuals. That militias have *traditionally*
relied on individuals to house weapons is a different issue from
the right to have an armed militia.
Dave Nelson
___________________________________________________________
Hewlett Packard email: da...@dtc.hp.com
ICBD fax: (415) 852-8312
1501 Page Mill Rd. phone: (415) 857-2902
Palo Alto CA. 94304
___________________________________________________________
William December Starr
In article <2qv2tp...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>,
fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU (Stilt Man) said:
> The Constitution says "arms," correct? It says the right of the
> people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, correct? You say
> that's an absolute right, correct?
>
> Then why is it that you can't have nukes in this country? I think
> it's positively unfair! There's no distinction of firepower in there,
> it simply says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be
> infringed. It *is* being infringed! You're not allowed to have
> nukes!
>
> If you're going to defend it as an absolute right, then this is what
> you are saying. Period.
He's right, you know... with the exception of the fact that I _describe_
it as an absolute right, rather than _defend_ it as such, I agree
completely with the Stilt Man: Until someone can come up with good
explanation of why nuclear bombs aren't "arms," the Second Amendment
_does_ fully protect the right of the people to keep and bear nuclear
bombs.
Please note that I'm not necessarily saying that that's a good thing;
I'm just saying that that's what the Law of the Land _is_, and that if
people don't like it then they should work towards having that Law
changed in the only legal way: by amending the Constitution. Until and
unless the "gun grabbers" do that, they are in the wrong, legally, no
matter how good or right their goals may be socially.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
George Greene
fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU (Stilt Man) writes:
|> The Constitution says "arms," correct? It says the right of the people to
|> keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, correct? You say that's an
|> absolute right, correct?
|>
|> Then why is it that you can't have nukes in this country? I think it's
|> positively unfair! There's no distinction of firepower in there, it simply
|> says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It *is*
|> being infringed! You're not allowed to have nukes!
This belongs in a gun-control group, and not in all the groups it's
currently going to (so I have pruned some but left others intact).
The fact that you are not allowed to "have" nukes does not
imply an infringement on your right to "keep and bear arms".
No individual person is CAPABLE of keeping or bearing a "nuke".
Any nuclear bomb has to be borne by a plane, which implies
a pilot, which implies a whole lot of infrastructure.
The right to keep and bear arms is an indvidual right.
Anything that is keeping and bearing a nuclear warhead
is too big to be an individual. Even more to the point,
just because we called it "arms control" doesn't mean that
"arms" in its original meaning even COVERED anything
that big.
Duane Hentrich
>BTW, semi-automatic firearms were available as early as the late 17th
>century.
Ya know, That's what always gets me about firearms technology. It's so
damn old. Nothing new in a long time. It's like there was something
holding up arms progress.
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich ba...@Tymnet.Com It is not that the view
determines reality, only what we accept from reality and how we structure
it. I am realist enough to believe that in the long run reality gets its
own chance to accept or reject our various views. - Allen Newell
Robert Hartman
>
>No anti-gun [nut] has yet to demonstrate or even argue that there
>is any "greater good" in banning guns as one can argue about
>yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Well, I'm not sure that anyone would call me an anti-gun-nut [TM],
but even I can see a "greater good" in restricting the traffic in
assault-class weapons, and perhaps concealable weapons as well.
It is the same "greater good" that was cited to proscribe yelling
"fire" in a crowded theater from the protections of free speech.
Allowing either action would put innocent lives in unnecessary
jeopardy. When your right to own weapons starts to interfere with
my right to live my life unmolested by you (or the criminal who
breaks into your house to steal your "street-sweeper"), I have every
right to ask the legislature to impose some regulations.
Having said that, I have tremendous qualms about restricting access
to weapons that give citizens a fighting chance at defending themselves
against the government. On the other hand, the huge stockpile those
Branch Davidians collected didn't do them much good.
I thought that the intent behind the 2nd Amendment was to allow the
States to protect themselves against the Federal government. But I
guess the Civil war pretty-well put that option to rest.
If you are qualified by military or some equivalent training to
competently handle an automatic weapon, and have proper facilities to
keep it from being stolen, I have no problem with you owning as many
as you can safely store.
But if you don't, what business do you have even owning one? What good
would it do you in a firefight if you don't know how to handle it?
>Why do they think there will be fewer drive-by shootings. Do they
>really believe that those guns will become unavailable? Why?
Yes. Supply and demand. They will get more expensive. You won't be
able to advertize for them. Collectors will have to be discrete about
what they've got. Once the "criminal" market is saturated, demand will
die. Before the ban, any "collector" could get one, tell all his friends,
watch it get stolen, and go buy another. Guns aren't consumables like
alcohol and drugs. Bans don't work on consumables, but they may well
work on reducing the traffic in durable items like assault weapons.
-r
Donald R. McGregor
>In article <2qvp87$2...@panix.com> lib...@panix.com (Aldo Tartaglini) writes:
:> : Since the ostensible purpose of the 2nd is to ensure that people will
:> : always have available the means to overthrow a tyrannical government,
:>That is just bullshit. The ostensible purpose of the 2nd amendment
:>is to enable the country to defend itself in case it gets attacked
:>(as in the War of 1812, or the Civil War); it was to ensure a sufficient
:>supply of gun-literate people for the purpose of national defense.
:>It most adamantly WAS NOT to enable lawless mobs to defy the legitimate
:>government.
"...to disarm the people (is) the best and most effective way to
enslave them..."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as
they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in
America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to
any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in
the United States"
-- Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principals of
the Federal Constitution.", in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on
the Constitution of the United States, at 56 (New York, 1888).
"if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know
how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
-- Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention,
rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could
prevail ... Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State
Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.
2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888).
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government
to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable
to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of
citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use
of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
And, not quite as pithy, from Federalist 46:
Let a regular army, fully
equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be
entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not
be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people
on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number
to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be
carried in any country, does not exceed one hundreth part of the whole
number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear
arms. This proportion would not yield; in the United States, an army
of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be
opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with
arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves,
fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by
governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be
doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be
conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best
acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against
the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over
the people of almost every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by
which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against
the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a
simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the
military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments
are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain,
that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their
yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of
local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national
will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of
the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to
the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that
the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned
in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the
free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they
would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in
actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power
would be to rescue theirs from the hands of the oppressors. Let us
rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever
reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a
blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures
which must precede and produce it.
--
Don McGregor | "If there is a God, the Cardinal de Richelieu will have much
mcg...@crl.com | to answer for. If not...well, he had a successful life."
George Greene
: always have available the means to overthrow a tyrannical government,
That is just bullshit. The ostensible purpose of the 2nd amendment
is to enable the country to defend itself in case it gets attacked
(as in the War of 1812, or the Civil War); it was to ensure a sufficient
supply of gun-literate people for the purpose of national defense.
It most adamantly WAS NOT to enable lawless mobs to defy the legitimate
government. THIS WAS TRIED on NUMEROUS occasions prior to the drafting
of the constitution, you know. The most blatant of them was called
Shays's Rebellion, in W.Mass. The framers included people who had
fought to put that rebellion down. So WE KNOW which side they
were on. Read a LITTLE history -- jeezus.
: I am far less concerned about civilian "idiots"
: who own guns than I am about government "idiots"
: who have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness t
: to misuse guns for the organized oppression of the people they
: are supposed to serve (c.f. the Weaver Massacre, the Waco Massacre, and
: the Dirty 30 police corruption case in NYC
Stop flaunting your ignorance, Aldo.
These cases are AS NOTHING compared to the near CENTURY
of government oppression of MILLIONS of citizens that
occurred THROUGHOUT DIXIE (where the citizens were black)
from 1876 onward. The ONLY cure, when the government
starts a campaign of armed oppression, is outside intervention
from a BIGGER government. State governments didn't stop pointing
their guns at their black citizens until the Federal
government started pointing guns at state governments. And
that was a damn GOOD thing, too -- it's a shame it took them
80 years to get around to it, though. It is NOT going to help
the cause of freedom for you to attack the federal government's
ability to do this sort of thing. That would only result
in a faction's having to conquer a much SMALLER polity,
which would be EASIER (i.e., it's easier to become governor
of Arkansas than to become President) to rule, and EASIER
to use as an instrument of oppression. If you care
about how Federal force is used, then you're going to
have to win some more elections. Just getting rid
of the force won'thelp: that merely leaves you at
the mercy of OTHER forces that are even LESS principled.
I know whereof I speak. I HAVE been there.
Aldo Tartaglini
>In article <2qvp87$2...@panix.com> lib...@panix.com (Aldo Tartaglini) writes:
> : Since the ostensible purpose of the 2nd is to ensure that people will
> : always have available the means to overthrow a tyrannical government,
>That is just bullshit. The ostensible purpose of the 2nd amendment
>is to enable the country to defend itself in case it gets attacked
Wrong. Read the Federalist Papers if you wish to understand what the 2nd
Amendment is about.
>were on. Read a LITTLE history -- jeezus.
Yes, please do, so you don't end up sounding like some hysterical statist.
> : I am far less concerned about civilian "idiots"
> : who own guns than I am about government "idiots"
> : who have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness t
> : to misuse guns for the organized oppression of the people they
> : are supposed to serve (c.f. the Weaver Massacre, the Waco Massacre, and
> : the Dirty 30 police corruption case in NYC
>Stop flaunting your ignorance, Aldo.
>These cases are AS NOTHING compared to the near CENTURY
>of government oppression of MILLIONS of citizens that
>occurred THROUGHOUT DIXIE (where the citizens were black)
>from 1876 onward.
An interesting aside: "gun control" has its roots in the efforts of the Ku
Klux Klan to ensure that emancipated slaves could not arm themselves to
defend against acts of violence perpetrated by racists. Gun control, so
beloved by today's liberal, was also used by Hitler to oppress the Jews.
Gun control has always been the sine qua non of totalitarianism, including
the murderous regimes of Stalin, Mao, Castro, et al. Gun control,
therefore, is properly considered a tool of racists and tyrants. Do you
really think Washington, Jefferson, etc. had this in mind when the 2nd
Amendment was written? If so, you are woefully misinformed.
>The ONLY cure, when the government
>starts a campaign of armed oppression, is outside intervention
>from a BIGGER government.
Right, that's how our once great nation came into being -- not.
>80 years to get around to it, though. It is NOT going to help
>the cause of freedom for you to attack the federal government's
>ability to do this sort of thing.
I see no need for the BATF to be in possession of sound-suppressed
submachine guns firing teflon-coated bullets when the average law-abiding
citizen is forbidden to possess such things. Unlike you, I do not trust my
government implicitly. "But the criminals have the cops outgunned!" you
squeal? Fine - all the more reason for making it legal for law-abiding
citizens to arm themselves at least as well as the police. The police
can't be everywhere at once and they are under no Constitutional
obligation to protect us. Statists will deny it, but the defense of an
individual's life and liberty is largely the responsibility of the
individual.
>to use as an instrument of oppression. If you care
>about how Federal force is used, then you're going to
>have to win some more elections. Just getting rid
>of the force won'thelp: that merely leaves you at
>the mercy of OTHER forces that are even LESS principled.
>I know whereof I speak. I HAVE been there.
I think we need to level the playing field a bit. If politicians can have
the benefit of fully automatic weaponry (e.g., Ted Kennedy's bodyguards
are armed with machine pistols), then the average law-abiding citizen
should also be able to own such weapons. I'm sick of the blatant hypocrisy
of politicians who insist on armed protection for themselves, yet
continually push for civilian disarmament. If the government wants me to
give up my weapons, then it had damned well better be prepared to give up
its own.
no one of consequence
wish to crosspost this all over Usenet, then type it in yourself when you
followup.
Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
]wol...@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu (no one of consequence) writes:
]>So like, can gun grabbers make an argument without bringing in the
]>nuclear strawman? *sigh*
]>
]>Please explain the relationship between NBC weapons <not the network>
]>and small arms. Bonus question: define the term assault weapon and give
]>your reasons for that definition. Open your bluebook and start the test.
]
]Answer the question.
Okay. No, gun grabbers cannot make an argument without bringing out the
nuclear strawman to 'defeat' their opponents.
Oh, wait. You meant the other person's question? Well, you should have
included the one line from her article above.
]The Constitution says "arms," correct? It says the right of the people to
]keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, correct? You say that's an
]absolute right, correct?
Yes.
]Then why is it that you can't have nukes in this country?
Because it is not an issue related to gun control. You see, when some gun
control advocates run out of arguments to use for attacking the 2nd
ammendment they construct a strawman by asking why RKBA supporters aren't
demanding the right to keep and bear nuclear warheads. Since most RKBA
supporters don't really want to own nukes and could care less about it,
the gun grabbers hop up and down and say 'HA! I found something you agree
on restricting! That means you are a hypocrite! Nyaaa!' or words to that
effect. It's very irritating because it diverts attention from the real
issue which is the right to bear small arms of any type. You know, devices
that use chemical explosions to propel a few hundred grams of metal to a
few hundred m/s velocity, which MIGHT kill someone if it hits a vital
organ or artery; not a device that releases energy through nuclear
reactions and vaporizes everything within a few kilometers <or hundred
meters for small nukes> of it's position. Nevermind that a rifle costs a
lot less than a nuclear warhead and that nukes are out of the reach of all
but the richest people in the world-- and they'd be able to ignore any law
against nuclear warheads anyway.
So, to make it brief, nuclear warheads are not the issue. RKBA supporters
are not interested in them, they want to be able to own firearms without
government interference. Gun control advocates aren't interested in
nuclear warheads, they just want to deprive citizens of firearms in the
mistaken belief that it will reduce crime in this country; when their
arguments start failing, some go overboard and drag in nuclear warheads
because they can't argue successfully for control of firearms.
]I think it's
]positively unfair! There's no distinction of firepower in there, it simply
]says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It *is*
]being infringed! You're not allowed to have nukes!
Who cares? You really don't and I don't. You just want to keep me from
owning firearms because you think I will either suddenly become psychotic
and gun down a cafeteria or that such weapons will somehow end up in a
criminals hands.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing use of nuclear weapons prohibited
within a sphere with a radius of 400,000 km from the Earth's core.
I *do* see some uses for them in asteroid mining. =)
]If you're going to defend it as an absolute right, then this is what you
]are saying. Period. You can't tell me that nukes don't count and that
]assault rifles do. This is a matter of doing exactly what those you deem
]"gun grabbers" do. You're limiting it based upon power. I want to know
]why it is that you're willing to skimp on the absolute right to keep and
]bear arms.
No I'm not. You are escalating the scale of the argument to a ludicrous
extent because you can't win the real argument.
]You know, I think you're really a closet gun grabber in disguise . . .
]
]<getting out whistle> PHWEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!! LOOK OUT! WE'VE GOT ANOTHER
]ONE OF THOSE *SUBVERSIVES* HERE!!!
*yawn* It figures that you would start imitating a secret policeman about
to arrest political dissidents.
James Cochrane
#I'm not quite sure why this is being cross-posted to alt.feminism and
#soc.men. I suspect a lot of this will be used to advance pet theories
#regarding the neandrathal nature of the male gender. Ah well, someone give
#me a club and a cute boy to club over the head and take to my cave ...
#Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
#->So what are you telling me? That nuclear weapons are not arms? The Second
#->Amendment does say "arms," correct? You can tell me it's not an issue related
#->to gun control all you want, but if you expect me to go along with the Second
#->Amendment on this, then you're going to have to go along with the way it's
#->worded. The amendment says "arms." You have stated that the right of the
#->people to keep and bear arms is an absolute one. Are you now telling me that
#->nuclear weapons do not fall under the category of "arms?" If it's an absolute
#"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
#That's, approximately, what the amendment says. That, to me (and quite a
#few others) means that person-transportable weapons should be accessible to
#civilians. In other words, if you can carry it, you should be able to
#possess it.
#This would mean that civilians could possess handguns, rifles, full-auto
#machineguns, and bazookas. I personally have no problem with a strict
#background check for most of these items, and some sort of *affordable*
#safety training, possibly mandatory in the case of shoulder-launched
#missiles.
#Civilians do not have the right, IMHO, to own tanks, cruise missiles,
#nuclear weapons, or an F-16.
I beg to differ with your definition. My interpretation, and the one the
SC seemed to be going by in US vs Miller, is that the 2nd Amendment
protects those arms which would be useful to the militia. Therefor, tanks,
machine guns, missiles, F-16's, grenades, and such are supposed to be
protected. In reality, only the very rich could afford tanks or fighter
jets, and they'd rather buy congressmen. A nuclear weapon would NOT be
protected because it is of little utility to the militia... the militia is
usually fighting to preserve its home, and scorched earth policies only
serve to deny the use of the land to an invader. Of course, if you can
afford to have a nuke, and really want one, the law probably isn't going to
get in your way too much...
James
#Make sense?
#-roy
#Roy S. Rapoport -- 510-601-8356 -- r...@soda.berkeley.edu -- RSRSODA@UCBOCF
#ObDisclaimer: I may change my opinion in five or ten years.
#finger r...@soda.berkeley.edu for PGP public key
Stilt Man
>Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>]wol...@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu (no one of consequence) writes:
>]>Please explain the relationship between NBC weapons <not the network>
>]>and small arms. Bonus question: define the term assault weapon and give
>]>your reasons for that definition. Open your bluebook and start the test.
>]Answer the question.
>]keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, correct? You say that's an
>]absolute right, correct?
>
>Yes.
>
>]Then why is it that you can't have nukes in this country?
>
>Because it is not an issue related to gun control. You see, when some gun
So what are you telling me? That nuclear weapons are not arms? The Second
Amendment does say "arms," correct? You can tell me it's not an issue related
to gun control all you want, but if you expect me to go along with the Second
Amendment on this, then you're going to have to go along with the way it's
worded. The amendment says "arms." You have stated that the right of the
people to keep and bear arms is an absolute one. Are you now telling me that
nuclear weapons do not fall under the category of "arms?" If it's an absolute
right, and if nuclear weapons are "arms" (I believe this country has signed
no fewer than three treaties referring to nuclear weapons as "arms"), then
why is it that you can't have nukes in this country? Telling me it's not
related to gun control is ridiculous. It is expressly guaranteed by the
Second Amendment that the RKBA shall not be infringed. You have explicitly
stated that this is an absolute right. Nuclear weapons are arms. So are
jet fighters, bombers, TOW missiles, Gatling guns, cruise missiles, and large
numbers of things that are extremely illegal for a common citizen to possess.
This is an explicit infringement of an absolute right to keep and bear arms.
All of these things are arms. If you defend an absolute right to keep and
bear arms, then you defend the right for common citizens to possess these
things. Period.
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
The only good elf is a dead elf. The only thing better is a dying elf who'll
tell you where it's friends are.
--popular Orc proverb
Roy S Rapoport
Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
->So what are you telling me? That nuclear weapons are not arms? The Second
->Amendment does say "arms," correct? You can tell me it's not an issue related
->to gun control all you want, but if you expect me to go along with the Second
->Amendment on this, then you're going to have to go along with the way it's
->worded. The amendment says "arms." You have stated that the right of the
->people to keep and bear arms is an absolute one. Are you now telling me that
->nuclear weapons do not fall under the category of "arms?" If it's an absolute
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That's, approximately, what the amendment says. That, to me (and quite a
few others) means that person-transportable weapons should be accessible to
civilians. In other words, if you can carry it, you should be able to
possess it.
This would mean that civilians could possess handguns, rifles, full-auto
machineguns, and bazookas. I personally have no problem with a strict
background check for most of these items, and some sort of *affordable*
safety training, possibly mandatory in the case of shoulder-launched
missiles.
Civilians do not have the right, IMHO, to own tanks, cruise missiles,
nuclear weapons, or an F-16.
Make sense?
-roy
Roy S. Rapoport -- 510-601-8356 -- r...@soda.berkeley.edu -- RSRSODA@UCBOCF
ObDisclaimer: I may change my opinion in five or ten years.
James Schaller
Just a point. Nukes have never been available to people.
Assault weapons have. Congress never took nukes away from
anyone. They have now made a law to take away something
that people were allowed to have in the past.
William December Starr
In article <2r4cta$e...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
r...@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S Rapoport) said:
...In other words, if you can carry it, you should be able to
possess it.
[* * *]
> Civilians do not have the right, IMHO, to own tanks, cruise missiles,
> nuclear weapons, or an F-16.
>
> Make sense?
Pretty much so, if your "bear" = "carry by sheer musclepower" definition
is correct. I'm not sure it is, though... wouldn't it have meant that
ownership and possession of cannons by the people was not protected by
the 2nd Amendment, and therefore could have been forbidden by the state,
back in the days when barrel-loading, gunpowder-based, light-the-fuse-
and-hope-for-the-best tubes of cast iron were he highest end of
state-of-the-art equipment of war? For that matter, does anyone know
whether, historically, there were any cannons owned by civilians back
then?
Oh, and incidentally, about nuclear weapons... just how close are
various U.S. government "black" research projects to developing a
man-portable backpack nuke, anyway? Or have they already done it?
John Rickert
A good point. Well said. The larger principle involved here is
common law. As Blackstone said -- this may be a slight paraphrase --
these are liberties and obligations from time immemorial, "the time
whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary." Our
Constitution was shaped and formed by this common law heritage, and we
certainly do not need explicit permission from the Federal government
to exercise these rights.
I rather distance myself from the more extreme interpretations of
the 2nd Amendment, or any other. There is no need for doctrinaire
ideology to justify protection of long-held liberties. Such dogmatism
usually leads to untenable generalities and strident rhetoric, which
is not, I think, what free and peaceable self-government is about.
Look at the advantages of the common law, formed by the consensus
of ordinary people in the course of their ordinary lives: it has a
greater long-term certainty, unlike the Federal policies and
regulations that change like the weather, and it removes law somewhat
from the hands of politicians, where it is always dangerous.
John Rickert
rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu
Barry McMorland
> >KT = Kill Team or possibly an advisor to a (Koumintang <sp?> tribal group in
> >Vietnam recruited to fight for Mom and apple pie.
>
> Kuomintang Tribal Group? I think you mean Hmong. Kuomintang is the ruling
> majority in Taiwan.
>
Sorry. I wasn't part of the scene over there. In those days I was sitting
around smoking dope here in Montreal with a whole lot of your countrymen
who had no desire to be part of the scene either. :) I've already been
reminded about the Montagnards, I can now add the Hmong to the list of
names that have slipped out of my head since those days.
I think that my memory of KT = kill team is *probably* more accurate. The
point I was trying to make is that this guy Taite seems to be somewhat
out in left field for a self proclaimed President of some cockamamie
conservative group.
However, in my defence I can say that I at least had the general area of
the world right. :-) And I did say *possibly*. :-)
______________________________________________________________________________
| All e-mail to the following address| They keep you doped with religion and |
|____________________________________| sex and TV, 'til you think you're so |
| slo...@latenite.proteous.qc.ca | clever and classless and free. But |
| -----------------------------------| you're still f*****g peasants as far |
| slo...@cam.org | as I can see... |
|_Fidonet: Barry McMorland 1:167/165_|________________John Lennon____________|
Robert Lewis Glendenning
William December Starr <wds...@crl.com> wrote:
>
>whether, historically, there were any cannons owned by civilians back
>then?
>
civilians all of the captured artillary and accompanying ammunition.
This was extremely useful when the civil defense groups were formed
to repell the probable German invasion in WWII.
>Oh, and incidentally, about nuclear weapons... just how close are
>various U.S. government "black" research projects to developing a
>man-portable backpack nuke, anyway? Or have they already done it?
>
Definitely, these were nuclear mines intended to deny the Soviets
some routes around/through the Fulda Gap. I believe they were
radioactive enough that you couldn't carry one for too long.
I don't think any strong RKBA advocate would mind giving up the rights
to weapons of mass destruction, provided this is done as a
constitutional amendment.
As the 2nd amendment stands now, I agree it doesn't prevent me
from owning a nuclear weapon.
This is part of the problems with constitutions: they get out
of date as technology and human inventiveness are so much
more powerful than expected. Our gov has plainly escaped
the boundries of power which the founders intended, based
upon philosophies as-then unthought of.
Lew
--
Lew Glendenning rlgl...@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points." Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).
David Feustel
to own howitsers (sp?) when ratification of the Constitution was being debated.
--
Dave Feustel N9MYI Internet:<feu...@netcom.com> Compuserve:<73532,1747>
The moral of the passage of the 'Assault Weapon' Ban by Congress is
that the President has demonstrated that neither he nor Congress need
to take the Constitution into account any more when they decide what
laws they want to pass.
Robert McMillin
[RKBA deletia]
Look, I don't care about *any* of this. It has zero to do with
alt.feminism.individualism. Edit your Followup-To: lines, dudes.
--
Robert L. McMillin | r...@helen.surfcty.com (preferred) | r...@netcom.com
* Write to clipper....@cpsr.org and tell them you oppose Clipper.
* Write to cant...@eff.org supporting HR 3627.
* Write le...@eff.org and demand the Clinton administration explain IN
THE SENATE why it thinks U.S. citizens shouldn't have any digital privacy.
* This is a shareware .signature -- please pass it on!
jt -- John Thompson
alt.feminism
soc.men
soc.women
alt.feminism.individualism
I think we're stretching it with alt.politics.radical-left, myself, but
maybe some of the gun-grabbers (tm) are there, so I left it in.
Stilt Man (fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU) wrote:
: wol...@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu (no one of consequence) writes:
: >Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
: >]wol...@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu (no one of consequence) writes:
: >]>Please explain the relationship between NBC weapons <not the network>
: >]>and small arms. Bonus question: define the term assault weapon and give
: >]>your reasons for that definition. Open your bluebook and start the test.
: >]Answer the question.
: >]The Constitution says "arms," correct? It says the right of the people to
: >]keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, correct? You say that's an
: >]absolute right, correct?
: >Yes.
: >
: >]Then why is it that you can't have nukes in this country?
: >Because it is not an issue related to gun control. You see, when some gun
: So what are you telling me? That nuclear weapons are not arms?
No, I think he's telling you that bringing it up in a "gun-control" argument
is somewhat strange. There is some merit to your argument, since nukes are
indeed arms. However, all you end up "proving" is that most of the pro-gun
people aren't absolutists. Most anti-gun people I've heard, though, seem to
be pretty absolutist, however. I know I was when I was one.
: The Second
: Amendment does say "arms," correct? You can tell me it's not an issue related
: to gun control all you want, but if you expect me to go along with the Second
: Amendment on this, then you're going to have to go along ...
: right, and if nuclear weapons are "arms" (I believe this country has signed
: no fewer than three treaties referring to nuclear weapons as "arms"), then
: why is it that you can't have nukes in this country? Telling me it's not
: related to gun control is ridiculous. It is expressly guaranteed by the
: Second Amendment that the RKBA shall not be infringed. You have explicitly
: stated that this is an absolute right.
Umm. Is my memory defective (distinctly possible) or does an international
treaty supercede the constitution? If it does, then the treaties we signed
do indeed limit private U.S. citizens from owning nukes.
Michael Tchou
Paragraph describing modern tactical military weaponry deleted...
---***(text deleted)***---
>This is an explicit infringement of an absolute right to keep and bear arms.
>All of these things are arms. If you defend an absolute right to keep and
>bear arms, then you defend the right for common citizens to possess these
>things. Period.
What's your point?
a. I should be allowed to buy a A-10/Warthog (or any other high-
tech weapon system) if I can afford one? (I agree with this.
I really like A-10s.)
b. I should immediately refocus my political objectives from
traditional small (gunpowder) arms to modern larger scale
(nuclear) weapons?
c. I should give up on the 2nd amendment, since its "absolute"
meaning has already been hopelessly abridged by the federal
government? (Sorry, curling up in a corner and whimpering, just
isn't my style.)
d. I should continue as I am, but hold in my heart the secret, long
term, goal that one should be able to own any weapon whatsoever?
(Kind'a like HCI, but going in the opposite direction.)
e. I should conclude that the constitution and its amendments are
antiquated and illogical, and work towards having them repealed?
(Perhaps I could simply ignore the portions I dislike.)
f. Some other wise & worthy alteration to my current behavior
that I am too rednecked, unsubtle, and illiterate to apprehend?
Note followups.
- michaelt/M6
----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
-- *** <disclaimer> ** Michael R. Tchou ** <disclaimer> *** --
-- My inventions, produce, and the benefits thereof, are my --
-- employer's property. My opinions are my own, and _only_ --
-- my own. All in all, a reasonably equitable arrangement. --
----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
Stilt Man
>Umm. Is my memory defective (distinctly possible) or does an international
>treaty supercede the constitution? If it does, then the treaties we signed
>do indeed limit private U.S. citizens from owning nukes.
International treaties do not supersede the Constitution. Treaties are
required to be ratified by the Senate before they go into effect in the first
place. This requirement is stated expressly in the Constitution.
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
The Three Stooges, the sinking ship, and the lone lifeboat:
Ronald Reagan: "Maybe we should save the women and children."
Richard Nixon: "F**k the women and children!"
Bob Packwood: "Gee, do you really think we have time?"
Stilt Man
Yeah? So? What *is* your point? That if white people have the right to deny
jobs to blacks based upon their skin color, that it's somehow more wrong to
take that right away?
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Taking away something that people were allowed
to have in the past is quite justifiable if it's wrong. People once had the
right to cane schoolchildren for cursing. That doesn't make it wrong to end
the practice.
Susan T. Graul
Folks, please edit your newsgroups lines. This thread is not relevant
to many of the groups it's being posted to. To those of you who have
been trying to direct it to the appropriate groups, thank you.
aaron greewnood
Susan T. Graul <sgr...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Folks, please edit your newsgroups lines. This thread is not relevant
>to many of the groups it's being posted to. To those of you who have
>been trying to direct it to the appropriate groups, thank you.
Looks like an invasion from soc.women.
This is the sixth post from that group with the header. The first four
were mine so I though it was personal. Maybe not. But the person
who responded to mine was the same one.
ajg
David Hoeflin
no one of consequence <wol...@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Okay, I forgot to set followups last time so I'm doing it now. If you
>wish to crosspost this all over Usenet, then type it in yourself when you
>followup.
>
>Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>]wol...@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu (no one of consequence) writes:
>]>So like, can gun grabbers make an argument without bringing in the
>]>nuclear strawman? *sigh*
>]>
>]>Please explain the relationship between NBC weapons <not the network>
>]>and small arms. Bonus question: define the term assault weapon and give
>]>your reasons for that definition. Open your bluebook and start the test.
>]
>]Answer the question.
Some good answers have been put forth but I hold a different opinion. The
Constitution was written when nukes didn't exist and it was written by
men not God. It is not as authoritive as the Bible. It was meant to be
amended from time to time as necessary. An amendment giving the
government the authority to regulate weapons of mass destruction
should have been written in the 1950's but the government had already
made up it's collective mind that they were above the limitations of the
Constitution and decided to ignore it as they pleased. They got away with
it with the machine gun ban, why not anything else? Now they want small
arms, soon will be handguns, followed by warrantless searchs, more
restrictions on speach, wiretapping the phones and on and on. The issue
isn't nukes, it's when do we demand that they obey the letter of the
Constitution and limit their power to what they can get a 2/3 vote to do.
Government is incapable of self control. That's why there is a 2nd
amendment.
David Hoeflein
Roy S Rapoport
->Oh, and incidentally, about nuclear weapons... just how close are
->various U.S. government "black" research projects to developing a
->man-portable backpack nuke, anyway? Or have they already done it?
Yeah, there you go with why a simple "anything you can carry" definition
isn't the best definition; it was the best I could come up with at the
time. Another, far more dangerous example: Gosh, think *I* could possibly
be strong enough to carry a 3oz vial of Anthrax? Biological/chemical weapons
are *really* light.
How about 'no weapons of mass destruction'? Of course, that leaves up the
issue of what exactly 'mass destruction' is. Are nuclear weapons 'mass
destruction weapons'? Yes, in my opinion. Are grenades 'mass destruction
weapons'? No, *in my opinion*.
Nobody I know who is against gun control is trying to define the 2nd
amendment as an absolute right for the citizens to own any weapon they
want. The problem is where you draw the line. To me, the line I'd like to
draw is 'any weapon useful in a guerilla-type situation where you're
fighting on your own soil against an enemy on your own soil." So
biological/checmial/nuclear (NBC) weapons would be disallowed. This would
give the citizens weapons adequate for the purpose for which I think weapons
are important for -- overthrowing the government (or maintaining the
potential for doing so).
Al Brackett--FAbracketO OPS--232-7620--DGC
>In article <GREENEG.94...@rachmaninov.cs.unc.edu>, gre...@rachmaninov.cs.unc.edu (George Greene) writes:
>
>|> The right to keep and bear arms is an indvidual right.
>
>about militias, not individuals. That militias have *traditionally*
>relied on individuals to house weapons is a different issue from
>the right to have an armed militia.
>
>Dave Nelson
>___________________________________________________________
WRONG: I sugjest that you read MILLER v UNITED STATES.
The 2nd Amendment is about individuals and there right to keep and bear,
Military weapons.
--
regards/ al
--
<< Support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights >>
LIBERTY >< And you Support your own Freedoms >< FOR ALL
abra...@wellspring.us.dg.com N1IQQ @ KD1CA.RI.USA Work for Peace / Plan for Conflict / [ insert Standard Disclamer Here ]
Young and Loud
Roy S Rapoport <r...@soda.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>Nobody I know who is against gun control is trying to define the 2nd
>amendment as an absolute right for the citizens to own any weapon they
>want. The problem is where you draw the line. To me, the line I'd like to
>draw is 'any weapon useful in a guerilla-type situation where you're
>fighting on your own soil against an enemy on your own soil." So
>biological/checmial/nuclear (NBC) weapons would be disallowed. This would
>give the citizens weapons adequate for the purpose for which I think weapons
>are important for -- overthrowing the government (or maintaining the
>potential for doing so).
Hey Roy,
I've got to say that this could be my own reasoning, 'cept
it's turned on its head. I would actually argue that I'd rather see
the disallowment of say.. handguns, and a Stinger Missile in every
garage. A restatement: I'd really like to see the random violence
in society done away with, but with a constant threat to the established
powers that the people they're 'ruling' will, upon sufficient provocation,
remind them of their humanity. In fact, to mangle Jefferson, I'd like
to see an armed rebellion every so often..
Back to reality. Those who'd ban mechanical weapons are sitting
on a time bomb anyway. You can currently buy a machine tool with a SCSI
interface, I'm told. Expensive, but under 10K. Controlled by CAD
programs. Riflery books are in public libraries. Neat anarchist
scenario: not only are people making *their own* weapons in garages, but
since they're making their own bullets, most of the assumptions from
standard ballistics are out the window. Ah well..
Rants galore,
-o
--
onomoto -- I run | Echoto NOVOTO NEUTRINOTO pseudoto Negroto
with scissors. | homoto LASSOTO. Amigoto Vitoto WOOTO HELLOTO
gar...@ingres.com
>In <2qjpsd$c...@ionews.io.org> jose...@io.org (Joseph Bou-Younes) writes:
>
>| Gag me with a 30-O6 cartridge. I'm a teen. I'm licensed to hunt and
>|have fired several types of firearms (I have yet to buy my own) and I see
>|absolutely no need for semi-automatic assault rifles in the "civilized" U.S.
>|society.
>
>Your right in a civilized society such guns would not be neccessary.
>Unfortunately it has been a long time since society has been civil.
And when was that?
>--
>Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They sell us the president the same way they sell us our Gar...@Ingres.com
clothes and our cars. They sell us every thing from youth Garrett Johnson
to religion; the same time they sell us our wars." - Jackson Browne