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.
Pete Lienemann x255-3385
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...@daisy.cc.utexas.edu () says:
>In article <CpFp1...@nrtpa22.bnr.ca>,
>Pete Lienemann x255-3385 <cnc115@nrtpa059> wrote:
> 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
>
> That SKS is deadly accurate. Isn't it one of the ones Comrade Klinton
>banned?
What was that old saying about guns being a substitute? A phalic symbol?
Guess you REALLLY aren't getting any, huh, Ralpher?
I can just see you alone in your dorm room, running your hands up and
down the barrels of your BIG GUNS, drooling as you contemplate all
those who've rejected you, all those who sneered at you. Glad I don't
live near you, Ralpher.
BTW Why are you putting shit like this in groups like talk.rape and alt.sex?
Think there might be some people there who don't have you in their
kill files yet?
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, 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!
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
| 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.
-- 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+
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
<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:
>
> 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.
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
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?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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
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____________|
ender
(John Angus) wrote:
> > 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.
>
I try not to flame, but you are an complete and utter idiot. Since [IYHO]
the only technology that counts in the constitution is the technology that
was in place during the *signing* of the constitution, can we infer that
the only form of freedom of speech that is constitutionally protected is
mail that is sent via horse and rider?
BTW, semi-automatic firearms were available as early as the late 17th
century.
--
Andrew
Pim: "Today's honest citizen is tomorrow's criminal"
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
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
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
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.
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
DENNIS M. CROCKER
doing this on purpose?
On tv recently, I saw the following comment...
Anti-gun Liberal: "We want to ban only those guns whose only purpose
is to kill people."
TV personality: "That sounds like the only sensible course of action."
Me, at home: "When a drug crazed would be Manson breaks into my home
to kill my family, I want a gun that is designed to kill people, not
a gun made to kill squirrels, birds or start track meets."
Dennis Crocker
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
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>
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
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.
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?
Barry McMorland
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 |
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!
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. --
----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
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).
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
ST3...@vm.cc.latech.edu
>>Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>>]wol...@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu (no one of consequence) writes:
>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
your pistol under the mattress is one thing, slipping even a tactical nuke
under is another. Granted the odds that either one will accidentally go off
given their proper respective safety procedures and inherent safety 'interlocks
' is remote. But my 9mm going off will at worst end up in my TV or fish tank,
since I NEVER EVER point it at anyone or anything I don't intend to destroy/kil
l. And the bullet will probably stop in one wall or the other even in my apt
since I use hollowpoints designed to stop in whatever they hit and not go thro
ugh. SO if my nuke has an AD, you can say bye bye to a few square blocks of cit
y. That would be an unreasonable risk to others safety. They don't even let you
put a nuke plant in the middle of town even, and those just melt! I think keepi
ng a tactical or any other nuke would be a safety hazard. But maybe if you had
the proper licensing, you could get one. It's be real hard considering what you
go thru to get a class 3 license. But I _WOULD_ worry about what would happen
if those little third world countries would to do me to get their hands on it.
Guess I better have some guards too. Are you starting to see tha absurdity of
your argument? nah...
William December Starr
[Note that alt.feminism and soc.men,soc.women are omitted from the
followup line.]
In article <2r73ps$g...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
r...@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S Rapoport) said:
> Nobody I know who is against gun control is trying to define the 2nd
> amendment as an absolute right for the citizens to own any weapon they
> want.
Hello.
Well, actually I'm not "against gun control" per se; I'm just in favor
of having the government obey the rules which are laid down in the very
Constitution from which that government purports to derive its
legitimate authority.
> The problem is where you draw the line. To me, the line I'd like to
> draw is 'any weapon useful in a guerilla-type situation where you're
> fighting on your own soil against an enemy on your own soil." So
> biological/checmial/nuclear (NBC) weapons would be disallowed.
This is a purely strategic/tactical debate now, rather than a political
one... if I was fighting against an enemy on my own soil, I think I
might find some good uses for these NBC weapons, especially the BC ones
which could presumably be used in arbitrarily large or small quantities,
depending on the circumstances.
Laurie Cubbison
In article <2r73ps$g...@agate.berkeley.edu>, r...@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S Rapoport) writes:
> William December Starr <wds...@crl.com> wrote:
>
No women on this thread so far.
> ->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?
>
Nothing obviously relevant so far.
> 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.
>
Haven't seen anything about women in this paragraph.
> 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).
>
That was a long section and still no mention of women. Why, may I ask,
was this crossposted to soc.women and alt.feminism?
> -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
These cross posts are getting very annoying in soc.women, and we're
tired of it, especially when they don't even approach our topic.
Miss Cybermanners
Joel Weisskopf
Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2r2ftl$r...@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu> 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:
>>]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.
Questions that need to be answered:
1. Could the definition that you are using for arms be different
than what was intended? In other words, do you think that a
nuclear weapon was what the framers had in mind or if they
were here would they agree?
2. If the definition has changed, should the constitution be
interpreted using the old or new definition?
3. Should the freedom of the press be interpreted give us
free dry cleaning, freedom of speech to stop paying for
public speakers, or the right to bear arms as a right to
wear short sleave shirts?
These sorts of arguments are very intellectually dishonest and a waste
of time. I guess the real question is how do we balance the
framers original intentions and modern interpretations? This is a
tough question. It is probably less dangerous to err on the
side of the more literal interpretation, than to allow a few judges
to trample the constituion. How hard would it be to pass another
ammendment that prohibits certain weapons as being beyond the 2nd
ammendment? I'd rather see that law that get passed with the
necessary majorities than allow people to circumvent the constitution.
> __________________________________________________________________________
>|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
steve hix
:
: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?
Long accomplished. (Mid to late '50s.)
The question that "man-pack" nukes and, say, the "Davy Crockett"
brought up, btw, was: "Do you think that Sergeants should be able
to decide when and if to use one of these?"
Apparently, it was not generally felt that soviet tanks coming
through the Fulda Gap were enough of a reason to answer "yes".
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <CpLMK...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwi...@ncratl.Atl writes...
|>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?
My records only go back about 5000 years, and I can't find any examples.
Though there are some on the net who swear that there was a time before
that when everybody was nice to each other. Something about goddess
worshippers who were later overthrown by evil patricians.
--
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
|In article <1994May1...@delphi.oes.amdahl.com> 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.
Would be so kind as to expound on just what this "greater good" would be.
I can't tear apart your arguments unless you present them first.
|It is the same "greater good" that was cited to proscribe yelling
|"fire" in a crowded theater from the protections of free speech.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not proscribed. It is punishable
if someone gets hurt as the result of it. Likewise if you mis-use a gun
and someone gets hurt, you will be pusnished.
|Allowing either action would put innocent lives in unnecessary
|jeopardy.
Driving does not put innocent lives at risk. Driving recklessly does.
Owning a gun does not put innocient lives at risk. Using one recklessly
does.
|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.
You have not demonstrated how someone's owning of a gun puts you at risk.
|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.
That's because they played fair. When the government stopped firing,
so did they.
|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.
The purpose was to allow citizens to protect themselves against
government, regardless of the level.
|alcohol and drugs. Bans don't work on consumables, but they may well
|work on reducing the traffic in durable items like assault weapons.
Totally wrong. Bans work best on consumables. Because once consumed they
must be replaced. Once you have a gun, you don't need to worry about the
ban anymore.
no one of consequence
Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
]<2r2 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?
Gee, I don't know. It looks to me like you quoted only two lines from my
entire article. I could have sworn that I'd answered it in that article
but you seem to have ignored it. How dishonest.
]That nuclear weapons are not arms?
]
]TheSecond 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.
I'm sorry, this form of ad hominem attack won't work. I *never* listen to
my opponents when they tell me how I should think. If I do decide to
defend citizens' rights to defend nukes it will be *after* I secure their
rights to own firearms from the current attacks being run against those
weapons. You will not divert my efforts.
The main reason why RKBA advocates are not defending one's rights to bear
nukes is because of two reasons: 1)They don't want nukes and 2) Nuclear
weapons are not threatened with being banned by acts of Congress, assault
weapons, handguns and other firearms are. So, RKBA advocates tend to
defend peoples rights to keep and bear assault weapons because of this.
In fact, it seems that nuclear weapons become an issue only after gun
control advocates run out of reasons for justifying a ban on firearms.
They bring up nukes and question RKBA advocate's 'sincerity' on the right
to bear arms and neatly sidestep the issue. All that they really prove is
that RKBA advocates may not care about the right to bear arms that have
the destructive power of 1 kiloton of TNT <how many joules is that? 5Mj
per ton of TNT?> and above; and that gun control advocates can't win a
debate dealing with the real issues.
Funny, I could have *sworn* I said something like the above in the last
article I wrote. You should have read it then.
--
|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 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article....|
Thomas Grant Edwards
>"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.
To the Supreme Court, as mentioned in US v Miller (1939), the arms
mentioned in the 2nd Amendment are those that have "some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
Unfortunately for Miller et. al., neither they nor their lawyer showed
up to point out how sawed-off shotguns fit those categories (trench
clearing comes to mind), so they lost.
They SC also said in the same decision:
"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power --
'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of
them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving
to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed
by Congress.' With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted
and applied with that end in view."
-Thomas
Mark O. Wilson
|state-of-the-art equipment of war? For that matter, does anyone know
|whether, historically, there were any cannons owned by civilians back
|then?
Thomas Jefferson owned a couple. Privateers, which were privately owned were
also armed with cannons.
|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?
I'm not certain why anyone would want to design a backpack nuke, but nukes
that fit in artillery shells have been around for years.
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <2r2ftl$r...@dumbo.cc.utexas.edu> 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? The Second
They are not militia type arms.
Mark Klemkosky~
> |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?
>
> I'm not certain why anyone would want to design a backpack nuke, but nukes
> that fit in artillery shells have been around for years.
Current nukes are relatively small. The "bus" on polaris missles (which are
relatively small) holds 18? (unsure, maybe its 6) warheads that can be trained
on independant targets. Artillery nukes became outdated when they realized
that its a good idea to be 20+ miles away from the detonation site.
--
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
David Hoeflin
Right now we are in a good position to talk to our government. As long as
we never surrender our militia weapons the government is forced to talk
to us and armed rebellion is unnecessary. Once we give up the weapons, if
the government refuses to talk, we have only the option of destroying it.
The weapons give the balance of power to the people making the violence
unnecessary just like the nukes kept the balance with the U.S.S.R. for so
long. People are just too damned stupid to really talk to each other
unless both sides are looking at an alternative to horrible to accept.
The argument over exactly what weapons are needed revolves around how
much armament the citizens need to keep the government respectful. Well
there's millions of us and thousands of them. We need whatever a foot
soldier would be using against us. Also, we need enough offensive
capability to decisively retaliate if the government dared a chemical or
biological attack. My opinion is that semi-automatic small arms and lots
of ammunitions are enough. With that much preparation the battle would
never be fought except in words. Just like now.
--
---
pacifier.com - Vancouver's Public access Internet (206) 693-0325
telnet or dial the above and type "new" at the prompt to register
Robert Hartman
>
>Right now we are in a good position to talk to our government. As long as
>we never surrender our militia weapons the government is forced to talk
>capability to decisively retaliate if the government dared a chemical or
So what this boils down to is that in order for someone to perform his
basic duty of citizenship and act as a check on the unbridled military
power of government, everyone should be capable of operating a gun.
This seems every bit as fundamental a skill as driving a car, even
if it isn't needed so often. So why is it that every high school in
the country isn't teaching a basic firearm safety class?
They could do the same thing they do with driver's ed. and show all the
blood-and-guts movies. They could tell the stories of the parents and
siblings of kids who have been senselessly shot. They could have class
discussions about the stupidity of it all, and the role of guns as a
necessary evil. Then they could take the kids to the school firing
range and have them all shoot. The "gang" kids would have far less of
an advantage, and be far less prone to use guns to bully others if they
knew that every other kid in the school also knew how to shoot. It
would take the mistique away from guns.
If we aren't willing to teach our people how to use guns responsibly,
then we won't have a "well-regulated militia." We'll have rampant
anarchy. When I start seeing the "pro-gun" people getting themselves
elected to school boards and setting up firearm safety classes, I'll
start taking their claims about how they're standing up for the 2nd
Amendment seriously. They're certainly well-enough organized to do
that. Otherwise, I can only conclude that they're just using the 2nd
Amendment as an excuse to justify what amounts to a very dangerous
hobby.
And high-sounding words or not, if that's all it is, it's simply too
dangerous a hobby to allow uneducated people to mess with.
-r
steve hix
:
[...snip...]
:If we aren't willing to teach our people how to use guns responsibly,
:then we won't have a "well-regulated militia."
Who's to say that most legal gun owners *aren't* being taught, one way
or another, responsible usage? (Not, btw, that it couldn't be done
better than current practice.)
:We'll have rampant anarchy.
Is this, perhaps, caffeine speaking? :}
Could you perhaps expand on this point, in other than vague, hypothetical
statements?
:When I start seeing the "pro-gun" people getting themselves
:elected to school boards and setting up firearm safety classes, I'll
:start taking their claims about how they're standing up for the 2nd
:Amendment seriously.
Look over this way a bit. I know people who are doing exactly that.
The fact that local school districts refuse to even consider setting
up such programs (with arguments ranging from "no money" to "what an
icky thought" to "guns are EVIL") has meant that these folk have had
to set up programs outside school hours/facilities. The end result is
that far fewer kids have access to the training.
:They're certainly well-enough organized to do that. Otherwise, I
:can only conclude that they're just using the 2nd Amendment as an
:excuse to justify what amounts to a very dangerous hobby.
You were doing pretty well up to this point.
Would you care to characterize the demonstrated risk of engaging in
recreational shooting?
I'll save you the effort: it's a damn sight less hazardous than engaging
in, say, football, baseball, or bicycling. Any of the above result in
*far* more visits to hospital emergency rooms than does legal recreational
shooting.
Try to separate "I don't like it" from "there is a demonstrated risk of
death or injury".
:And high-sounding words or not, if that's all it is, it's simply too
:dangerous a hobby to allow uneducated people to mess with.
Not nearly as dangerous as, say, automobile-related hobbies. (More
people die in auto and motorcycle racing events than at shooting
matches.)
I won't comment on the rather offensive elitist tone of the last
paragraph. Much, anyway.
Brian K. Yoder
is wya beyond reason. PLEASE limit your cross-posts to relevant newsgroups!
--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 |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Charley Boudreau
>>> 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 |
>+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Again,
That means the government has the right/duty/responsibility to decide
what is well trained and well prepared. Do you accept government regulated
training programs and (re)certifications before a gun can be owned?
cpb
Ed Stone
Why was the 2nd amendment included in the bill of rights, all of which specify
the rights of the people and limitations upon the government?
Why were the words "the right of the people" used instead of "the right of
the state" or "the right of the government" or "the right of the militia"?
Just sloppy word crafting? Does that sloppiness affect any other articles or
amendments? How about the amendment above it (#1)? Didn't they mean to say
"...or the right of the SENATE peaceably to assemble", or maybe they meant
state legislatures or something. And in the amendment below it, maybe instead
of "without the consent of the owner" they really meant "without the consent
of the local chief of police". or "without the consent of the secretary of
HUD". Anyone have suggested improvements to other amendments? When do we vote?
Or did Article 5 already bite the dust?
When we start playing scrabble with the constitution, using the politically
correct vocabulary only, you will need to trust our congress to improve upon
those folks who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. I prefer
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to my current congressperson, or president,
et. al. How about you?
Charley Boudreau (char...@bedford.progress.com) wrote:
" >--Brian
" >--
--
-- ----------------------------
Ed Stone
est...@Jabba.Cybernetics.NET
----------------------------
Robert Hartman
>In article p...@infmx.informix.com, har...@informix.com (Robert Hartman) writes:
>:
>[...snip...]
>:If we aren't willing to teach our people how to use guns responsibly,
>:then we won't have a "well-regulated militia."
>
>Who's to say that most legal gun owners *aren't* being taught, one way
>or another, responsible usage? (Not, btw, that it couldn't be done
>better than current practice.)
>
>:We'll have rampant anarchy.
>
>Is this, perhaps, caffeine speaking? :}
Hi Steve!
Nope. (Not unless it's been lying dormant for the last 5 years.) Just me
getting a little cranky.
>Could you perhaps expand on this point, in other than vague, hypothetical
>statements?
How many drive-by shootings have there been in any large city in the past
year?
>:When I start seeing the "pro-gun" people getting themselves
>:elected to school boards and setting up firearm safety classes, I'll
>:start taking their claims about how they're standing up for the 2nd
>:Amendment seriously.
>
>Look over this way a bit. I know people who are doing exactly that.
Good!
>:They're certainly well-enough organized to do that. Otherwise, I
>:can only conclude that they're just using the 2nd Amendment as an
>:excuse to justify what amounts to a very dangerous hobby.
>
>You were doing pretty well up to this point.
Thanks!
>Would you care to characterize the demonstrated risk of engaging in
>recreational shooting?
I have no problem with people target-shooting at a qualified range.
The problem is when the guns leak out, get stolen, or wind up in the
hands of teenagers and children who've seen too many cartoons and don't
quite understand what the word "dead" means.
>I'll save you the effort: it's a damn sight less hazardous than engaging
>in, say, football, baseball, or bicycling. Any of the above result in
>*far* more visits to hospital emergency rooms than does legal recreational
>shooting.
>
>Try to separate "I don't like it" from "there is a demonstrated risk of
>death or injury".
When guns are abused, or used to settle arguments between children,
there certainly is a demonstrated risk. Just check any emergency room
in any large city, or increasingly, in suburban and rural emergency rooms.
>:And high-sounding words or not, if that's all it is, it's simply too
>:dangerous a hobby to allow uneducated people to mess with.
>
>I won't comment on the rather offensive elitist tone of the last
>paragraph. Much, anyway.
Point taken. I was in a bit of a snit. What I meant was "inexperienced
teenagers and children." If the kids are going to get them anyway, we owe
it to them to teach them what they're about.
-r
bob frost
mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM writes:
>Though there are some on the net who swear that there was a time before
>that when everybody was nice to each other.
We would not be so naive. But we do dream of a future in which public
life is not characterized by incipient tribal war, with our own versions
of Bosnian Serbs, Croats, Hutus, and Tutsis armed to the teeth ready to
shoot because someone else's ethnicity constitutes to them a crime
punishable by vigilante justice. I'll be blunt: much of the self-styled
defenders of guns are simply RACISTS, imagining (hoping?) that some mean
Ice-T "uppity nigger" will traipse into their crosshairs.
Robert Lewis Glendenning
Flame bait, right? Especially nicely done, the criticism of other's
ethnicity, just before you display your own "anti-gun ethnicity".
Impressive. Bet you get lots of flames for amazing stuff like this.
Lew
--
Lew Glendenning rlgl...@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points." Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).
James Johnston
I said to a woman, "Mind if I hit on you?" (I got that one here on the net).
She said, "well you'd be hitting on a pregnant woman.
xxx
Mark O. Wilson
|Current nukes are relatively small. The "bus" on polaris missles (which are
|relatively small) holds 18? (unsure, maybe its 6) warheads that can be trained
|on independant targets. Artillery nukes became outdated when they realized
|that its a good idea to be 20+ miles away from the detonation site.
Got news for you. Already got artillery that can lob 20+ miles. If you aren't
as concerned about accuracy, they can go even farther.
Tactical nukes still exist.
In Exile Far From Home
and as soon as I figure out how to remove them I will. I hate RTin.
Mark O. Wilson (mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM) wrote:
: In <2r48dc...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU (Stilt Man) writes:
: |>]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
: They are not militia type arms.
So does that mean the Second Admendment only protects the right to own
a flint-lock musket? No problem with banning assult rifles there. After
all they are no more militia type weapons than, say, nuclear demolition
charges or landmines are.
--
> <
The Sound of One .Sig Clapping
no one of consequence
In Exile Far From Home <s66...@cc.ntnu.edu.tw> wrote:
]Don't know what this is doing in alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women or
]hate RTin.
Done.
]Mark O. Wilson (mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM) wrote:
]: They are not militia type arms.
]
]So does that mean the Second Admendment only protects the right to own
]a flint-lock musket? No problem with banning assult rifles there. After
]all they are no more militia type weapons than, say, nuclear demolition
]charges or landmines are.
No. Militia-type weapons are 'assault rifles' as well as regular battle
rifles and all other small arms. Militia are basically light infantry who
provide their own weapons.
What gave you the idea that the Constitution didn't account for
technology in the Bill of Rights? That would mean that the 1st Amendment
only protects handwriting, printing presses and horse-driven messages.
But you are posting from Taiwan, so why do you care? Or does 'Exile Far
From Home' mean you are an American working there?
matthew alsobrook
: Would you care to characterize the demonstrated risk of engaging in
: recreational shooting?
: I'll save you the effort: it's a damn sight less hazardous than engaging
: in, say, football, baseball, or bicycling. Any of the above result in
: *far* more visits to hospital emergency rooms than does legal recreational
: shooting.
Every one of the above sports causes numerous injuries, and
even death. All of them endanger safety and health. All or them
*except one* ONLY endangers the voluntary participants of that sport.
The one that endangers outsiders/innocents is the doozy. Guess which
one that is.
: Try to separate "I don't like it" from "there is a demonstrated risk of
: death or injury".
'...to those not voluntarily involved.' I don't care if a
bunch of bone heads want to put on padding and beat on each other
while pretending to chase a ball around. However, I am slightly more
disturbed when the 'sport' reaches out and injures someone who is not
participating. No young child was ever killed by football. Or
baseball. Or cycleing. But I read about young children being shot
all the time; either accidentally by themselves, or by a careless
adult.
Are you in love with the noise a gun makes? The flash? The
smoke? We could set you up with a sega if all you wanted to test was
your accuracy, y'know. Just aim at the screen... shoot the little
ducks. Safer all around....
-Jas
R S Rodgers
matthew alsobrook <jals...@scott.skidmore.edu> wrote:
> '...to those not voluntarily involved.' I don't care if a
>bunch of bone heads want to put on padding and beat on each other
>while pretending to chase a ball around. However, I am slightly more
>disturbed when the 'sport' reaches out and injures someone who is not
>participating. No young child was ever killed by football.
How stupid you are. Yes, young children are killed by football.
By baseball, too. And soccer. And rugby. And hockey. And
swimming. And by toys, by household cleaners, by driving, by
riding bicycles.
Recreational shooting is no more tied to murders than driving
to Chuck E Cheeses is tied to vehicular manslaughter.
--
Visit your local library and request If you know what the rules are,
a form to join Caning Party USA, the then you can break them carefully.
pro-punishment party.
Reply to rsro...@wam.umd.edu
Michael Agney
matthew alsobrook <jals...@scott.skidmore.edu> wrote:
>
>: Would you care to characterize the demonstrated risk of engaging in
>: recreational shooting?
>: I'll save you the effort: it's a damn sight less hazardous than engaging
>: in, say, football, baseball, or bicycling. Any of the above result in
>: *far* more visits to hospital emergency rooms than does legal recreational
>: shooting.
>
> Every one of the above sports causes numerous injuries, and
>even death. All of them endanger safety and health. All or them
>*except one* ONLY endangers the voluntary participants of that sport.
>The one that endangers outsiders/innocents is the doozy. Guess which
>one that is.
Soccer. In Great Britain. :-)
I'll save further response for those with more facts behind them.
>
>No young child was ever killed by football. Or
>baseball. Or cycleing.
Actually, I seriously doubt that any of these statements is true.
Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that they indeed did
cause more deaths than firearms among _young_ children. Of course,
once you get past the age of 15 or so, firearms deaths become more
important.
>But I read about young children being shot
>all the time; either accidentally by themselves, or by a careless
>adult.
Unusual events make the news a lot more often than common events do.
(Man bites dog and all that.)
Note followups.
--
| Michael Agney | Secretary, U. of Ediacara |
| AnimeMUCK no Mithrandir | mag...@cco.caltech.edu |
Do not remove tag under penalty of law.
Brice Dowaliby
|> steve hix (fid...@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
|>
|> : Would you care to characterize the demonstrated risk of engaging in
|> : recreational shooting?
|> : I'll save you the effort: it's a damn sight less hazardous than engaging
|> : in, say, football, baseball, or bicycling. Any of the above result in
|> : *far* more visits to hospital emergency rooms than does legal recreational
|> : shooting.
|>
|> Every one of the above sports causes numerous injuries, and
|> even death. All of them endanger safety and health. All or them
|> *except one* ONLY endangers the voluntary participants of that sport.
Car racing? Man, them cars hitting the stands at 200 mph
are dangerous.
|> The one that endangers outsiders/innocents is the doozy. Guess which
|> one that is.
A can't remember *ever* hearing about a person being killed
at a shooting event, although I'm sure it happens upon
rare occasion. And yes, people are killed each year while hunting.
On the other hand, people are killed every year by being
beaten with a baseball bat. This bears as much resemblance
to baseball as drive buy shootings do to IPSC competition.
|> : Try to separate "I don't like it" from "there is a demonstrated risk of
|> : death or injury".
|>
|> '...to those not voluntarily involved.' I don't care if a
|> bunch of bone heads want to put on padding and beat on each other
|> while pretending to chase a ball around. However, I am slightly more
|> disturbed when the 'sport' reaches out and injures someone who is not
|> participating. No young child was ever killed by football.
God, are you ignorant. Every year, some poor child dies
from football injuries.
|> Or
|> baseball. Or cycleing.
Kids die every year by doing these things.
|> But I read about young children being shot
|> all the time; either accidentally by themselves, or by a careless
|> adult.
|>
|> Are you in love with the noise a gun makes? The flash? The
|> smoke? We could set you up with a sega if all you wanted to test was
|> your accuracy, y'know. Just aim at the screen... shoot the little
|> ducks. Safer all around....
Why are *you* so in love with taking away a lawful,
interesting, pasttime of mine? I really enjoy
shooting pieces of paper, and I really enjoy
having the capability to defend myself and
my loved ones from the bad guys.
Why is that a problem for you? I have never shot anyone,
and have never even pointed a gun at anyone. Why do you think
you have the right to take these tools away from me?
--
Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH 03766
b...@fluent.com
I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <Cpwrq...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> Mark O. Wilson,
|mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM writes:
|>Though there are some on the net who swear that there was a time before
|>that when everybody was nice to each other.
|We would not be so naive.
You don't get out much do you?
BTW, why do you assume the right to speak for everyone.
|But we do dream of a future in which public
|life is not characterized by incipient tribal war, with our own versions
|of Bosnian Serbs, Croats, Hutus, and Tutsis armed to the teeth ready to
|shoot because someone else's ethnicity constitutes to them a crime
|punishable by vigilante justice. I'll be blunt: much of the self-styled
|defenders of guns are simply RACISTS, imagining (hoping?) that some mean
|Ice-T "uppity nigger" will traipse into their crosshairs.
Do you have enven the slightest bit of evidence to support your extremely
stupid, vulgar and racist statement?