" what 'framers' thought or felt" re: 2nd is Relevant"!
Guerilla
In article <33D41A...@interaccess.com>, Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
|RR: Yes, the court has never ruled that the RKBA is an individual
|right. The question is whether, in dicta (opinion), the court
|"stated" an individual right.
| This is difficult to prove. Neither Dred-Scott nor Verdugo-Urquidez
|used the word "individual."
| So we must define the term.
My gawd, man! Dont include me in your "we".
I dont have to define anything, because my Lord and saviour has told me I, me,
have an inalienble Right to defend myself. I have an understanding that it is
the most important Civil and Human Right I possess. It is not for another, a
man in robes or any other, to decide what MY Rights are. They are
self-evident.
| My definition would be that an individual
|right applies to all individuals, and cannot be infringed by any
|government.
| Of course, under this definition, very few rights would qualify.
| The founding fathers didn't use the term "individual." They used
|the term "people" which courts have compared with the word "citizen."
|Citizens in 1789 were propertied adult white males, and few others.
|Other "individuals" (women, children, blacks, etc) did not qualify.
| Today, of course, the group of citizens has expanded, and the
|Supreme Court has expanded the term "the people" beyond the
|meaning of citizens, but only selectively, for instance to include
|alien residents, but only as regards the rights under the 4th
|Amendment, and perhaps some of the 1st.
| The problem remains the meaning of "the people" in the 2nd
|Amendment. It cannot include all individuals (not children, felons
|or aliens).
All Freemen have the same inalienable Rights. Try as you may, the once-felon
retains all his Rights when he leaves prison. We do not have a caste system
with some sort of second-class status. Subhumans, as I believe the phrase
goes.
| Does it then mean all U.S. citizens? It might, except for the
|fact that the founding fathers felt it was also synonimous with
|those citizens enrolled in well regulated militias (UMA1792).
Which were made up of all able bodies between certain ages.
| Thus we are left with the question of whether the founding fathers
|would today agree that "the people," even without militia enrollment,
|should be afforded a constitutional protection against federal
|gun infringement.
The Constitution protects NOTHING. It merely recognizes the God-given Rights
that all Free men know in their hearts they possess.
Further, the word "gun" doesnt appear there. At least in my copy, perhaps
yours was printed by some socialist political party. Arms is the word, Sir.
GW owned warships; the founders believed the people should retain all arms,
including weapons of mass destruction.
| Since most of the debate about the 2nd revolved around common
|defense, militia power versus standing armies, and the need to
|restrain tyranny... I can only surmise that the founding fathers
|today would not allot the RKBA to any Tom, Dick or Harriett
|not enrolled in a militia.
There is no enrollment for the unorganized militia. You are mistaken.
Are you free?
Do you own your body? Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or
medicate yourself? Do you own your labor? Can you work for any wage
you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat?
Do you own your possessions? Can the terms of your property ownership
be changed at any time, or for any reason? Can your property be taxed
without limitation?
Can you travel freely? Must you carry identification papers for you and your
property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse?
There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints. One point is slavery, and
at the other end: FREEDOM.
Ray
Guerilla wrote:
> I dont have to define anything, because my Lord and saviour has told me I, me,
> have an inalienble Right to defend myself. I have an understanding that it is
> the most important Civil and Human Right I possess. It is not for another, a
> man in robes or any other, to decide what MY Rights are. They are
> self-evident.
RR: So YOUR God has given YOU a right to keep an Uzi? ROFL! When did
God speak to you about this, Guerilla? Did it come in a dream? While
you were squeezing off a few at the range? Maybe at a local NRA
tent revival meeting? Or maybe God spoke to you through someone else.
Was it Elmer Gantry or Charleton Heston? Billy Sunday or Wayne
LaPierre.
Tell me, does God own a gun?
> All Freemen have the same inalienable Rights. Try as you may, the once-felon
> retains all his Rights when he leaves prison.
RR: Sorry, you're wrong about this. Even Alan Gottlieb couldn't get his
guns back after his felony conviction.
RR> | Does it then mean all U.S. citizens? It might, except for the
> |fact that the founding fathers felt it was also synonimous with
> |those citizens enrolled in well regulated militias (UMA1792).
> Guerilla> Which were made up of all able bodies between certain ages.
RR: Wrong again. UMA militiamen had to be citizens. Slaves, women
and aliens need not apply.
I must say, I can't understand how you can be so wrong about these
things, Guerilla, especially since you are a regular at God's
discussion groups.
> The Constitution protects NOTHING. It merely recognizes the God-given Rights
> that all Free men know in their hearts they possess.
RR: The BoR protects assumed rights from federal infringement.
> Further, the word "gun" doesnt appear there. At least in my copy, perhaps
> yours was printed by some socialist political party. Arms is the word, Sir.
> GW owned warships; the founders believed the people should retain all arms,
> including weapons of mass destruction.
RR: And I suppose God would agree with a nuke in every garage, nerve
gas in the basement, and anthrax toxin on the kitchen shelf? :-)
Thanks for your post, Guerila. You brightened my day.
Neal Feldman
Guerilla wrote:
>
> In article <33D41A...@interaccess.com>, Ray <ki...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
> |RR: Yes, the court has never ruled that the RKBA is an individual
> |right. The question is whether, in dicta (opinion), the court
> |"stated" an individual right.
> | This is difficult to prove. Neither Dred-Scott nor Verdugo-Urquidez
> |used the word "individual."
> | So we must define the term.
>
> My gawd, man! Dont include me in your "we".
> I dont have to define anything, because my Lord and saviour has told me I, me,
> have an inalienble Right to defend myself.
Quite true. However nowhere is it written that you may do so with
anything you may desire. You may not do so with a lightsabre... for
regardless of your desire such has not been invented yet. You may not
do so with nuclear weapons, nor with chemical or biological weapons. As
such clearly your avenues of self defense, while it in and of itself is
a right you possess, can be and are limited.
Unless, of course, you are one of those nutcases who feel that
individuals should be allowed to go around packing nukes or germ
bombs...
> I have an understanding that it is
> the most important Civil and Human Right I possess.
Nonsense. The right to think, live and communicate are far more
important, for without those one does not have the ability to defend
oneself.
> It is not for another, a
> man in robes or any other, to decide what MY Rights are. They are
> self-evident.
Oh really? And which document are you looking at? The warning labels
on the pads on the walls of your room?
> All Freemen have the same inalienable Rights. Try as you may, the once-felon
> retains all his Rights when he leaves prison.
Actually not quite true. A convicted felon has no right to franchise,
no right to vote, can be ordered to restrict movements, etc. Hardly the
'same rights as anyone else'. Don't get me wrong... I shed no tears for
the pains of the felonious, but I just thought I would point out your
error.
> We do not have a caste system with some sort of second-class status.
Actually while unfortunate we do have such a system... ask any legal
alien or homosexual if they enjoy the same rights and equal treatment
that anyone else takes for granted.
> | Does it then mean all U.S. citizens? It might, except for the
> |fact that the founding fathers felt it was also synonimous with
> |those citizens enrolled in well regulated militias (UMA1792).
>
> Which were made up of all able bodies between certain ages.
The militia is that... however it makes mention of a WELL REGULATED
(read: organized) militia. While all well regulated militias are
militias, not all militias are well regulated militias.
> | Thus we are left with the question of whether the founding fathers
> |would today agree that "the people," even without militia enrollment,
> |should be afforded a constitutional protection against federal
> |gun infringement.
>
> The Constitution protects NOTHING.
Back to basic civics class for you, young man.
> It merely recognizes the God-given Rights
> that all Free men know in their hearts they possess.
BZZZZT! Sorry... wrong answer.. but thank you for playing.
There is no mention of god anywhere in the US Constitution or the
amendments. Nowhere.
> Further, the word "gun" doesnt appear there. At least in my copy, perhaps
> yours was printed by some socialist political party. Arms is the word, Sir.
> GW owned warships; the founders believed the people should retain all arms,
> including weapons of mass destruction.
So you ARE one of those nutcases who beleive that Bubba and Skeeter
should be allowed to haul around nuclear weapons in their 4-by. Thank
you for admitting that. We can file you under delusional whacko now.
> | Since most of the debate about the 2nd revolved around common
> |defense, militia power versus standing armies, and the need to
> |restrain tyranny... I can only surmise that the founding fathers
> |today would not allot the RKBA to any Tom, Dick or Harriett
> |not enrolled in a militia.
>
> There is no enrollment for the unorganized militia. You are mistaken.
True... but the unorganized (read; NOT a WELL REGULATED) militia has no
reference to the RTKBA nor vice versa.
--
Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!"
Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
than...@cyberis.net
R. D. Bridges
In article <33E01E...@cyberis.net>, Neal Feldman
<than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
> Guerilla wrote:
[snip]
> > I dont have to define anything, because my Lord and saviour has told
me I, me,
> > have an inalienble Right to defend myself.
>
> Quite true. However nowhere is it written that you may do so with
> anything you may desire. You may not do so with a lightsabre... for
> regardless of your desire such has not been invented yet. You may not
> do so with nuclear weapons, nor with chemical or biological weapons. As
> such clearly your avenues of self defense, while it in and of itself is
> a right you possess, can be and are limited.
Surely, collectively, we defend ourselves with nuclear weapons every hour
of every day? The defense of one's life is by its nature without
restrictions. Any and all means may be, and have historically been,
employed to defend a person or a people from destruction.
> Unless, of course, you are one of those nutcases who feel that
> individuals should be allowed to go around packing nukes or germ
> bombs...
Individuals already do. Do you realize how much weapons-grade plutonium
is unaccounted for? Or how easy it is to construct other weapons of mass
destruction? The knowledge and materials are out there. I personally
would find it unsettling, to say the least, to know a neighbor had nerve
gas in his garage. But we're arguing what the second amendment protects,
and it does not limit the arms it protects.
The amendment process is in place to change the constitution. I could
stomach limiting the arms protected through this process much better than
the constant revisionist, end-run approach of saying the thing means other
than what it says.
> > I have an understanding that it is
> > the most important Civil and Human Right I possess.
>
> Nonsense. The right to think, live and communicate are far more
> important, for without those one does not have the ability to defend
> oneself.
Self-defense is paramount, coming before food, shelter, or anything else
on the need spectrum. Even lower animals instinctively defend themselves,
without having deep thoughts or communicating.
> > It is not for another, a
> > man in robes or any other, to decide what MY Rights are. They are
> > self-evident.
>
> Oh really? And which document are you looking at? The warning labels
> on the pads on the walls of your room?
Maybe the declaration of independence? "We hold these truths to be
self-evident..."
[snip]
> > Further, the word "gun" doesnt appear there. At least in my copy, perhaps
> > yours was printed by some socialist political party. Arms is the word, Sir.
> > GW owned warships; the founders believed the people should retain all arms,
> > including weapons of mass destruction.
>
> So you ARE one of those nutcases who beleive that Bubba and Skeeter
> should be allowed to haul around nuclear weapons in their 4-by. Thank
> you for admitting that. We can file you under delusional whacko now.
Really? But Captain "Bubba" and Colonel "Skeeter" are automatically more
capable of acting responsibly with said nukes just because their vehicle
has U.S. Army markings on it? Who's deluded here?
[snip]
Guerilla
Dont waste too much time on NF, Mr. Bell. He is a statist.
And its Guerilla, feldy. Youve never made fun of my name before, but I guess
theres a time for it now, eh? Hey, you still on welfare?
In article <01bc9e18$03738f80$576295cc@lem-bell>,
"Lem Bell" <lb...@interaccess.com> wrote:
|Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote
|
|LJB: The right to life is the most important right
|a person has. The right to think and communicate are
Yes, without the sword, the pens become taxed, regulated, and eventually
confiscated.
|> NF: Actually while unfortunate we do have such a
|> system... ask any legal alien or homosexual if they
|> enjoy the same rights and equal treatment that anyone
|> else takes for granted.
|
|LJB: As you say this is the unfortunate reality in
|practice; even though, in theory (and as a matter of
|law), these people ARE "entitled" to equal treatment
|and equal protection for their rights.
Homosexuals want the priveledges that heteros have. The answer is not to let
the govt extend these priveledges to groups they favor. The answer, in
Oregon, is for the 700 special priveledges gifted to hetero married couples,
to be revoked.
|> > Gorilla: Which were made up of all able bodies
|> > between certain ages.
|>
|> NF: The militia is that... however it makes mention
|> of a WELL REGULATED (read: organized) militia. While
|> all well regulated militias are militias, not all
|> militias are well regulated militias.
|
|LJB: Yes the above is certainly true. (This is the
No. It is possible to have a well-regulated unorganized militia. While your
definition is better than his, 'well-regulated' doesnt exclusively mean
'organized'. Even if it did, the term 'unorganized' was meant to mean that
the militia is unorganized by the govt.
Peter H. Proctor
In article <33E426...@cyberis.net> Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> writes:
>From: Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net>
>Subject: Re: " what 'framers' thought or felt" re: 2nd is Relevant"!
>Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 23:33:06 -0700
>Where do you get they are saying it says what it does not say? Please
>show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had any
>concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
>bomber, a nuclear weapon, a germ warfare bug capable of eradicating life
>on a mass scale, etc etc etc... Oh, please show me they had these
>concepts in mind when they mentioned 'arms' and that they would, if
>asked today, include such in the protected status of the second
>amendment for INDIVIDUAL ownership and use. Can you do this please?
Strawman. The same could be said of the first amendment relative to
Computer-set type, electronic broadcasting, or the internet. Yet all of
these come under the free speach and free press protections.
Dr. P
Joe Sylvester
In article <33E426...@cyberis.net>, than...@cyberis.net says...
>
>
>Rulings by the USSC have limited what the second amendment protects...
>and all that you say above ignores that doing such is ILLEGAL. We are
>discussing LEGAL practice of those second amendment rights... not
>illegal ones.
Which rulings are those? Do you mean the Miller decision which implied that
the protection was to "any part of the ordinary military equipment".
> than what it says.
>
>Where do you get they are saying it says what it does not say? Please
>show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had any
>concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
Repeating weapons they knew about. They also knew about cannon, of which a
howitzer is merely an evolved form.
>bomber, a nuclear weapon, a germ warfare bug capable of eradicating life
>on a mass scale, etc etc etc... Oh, please show me they had these
>concepts in mind when they mentioned 'arms' and that they would, if
>asked today, include such in the protected status of the second
>amendment for INDIVIDUAL ownership and use. Can you do this please?
In the absence of any apparrent limitation of the term "arms" in the text of
the second amendment, one can only conclude that they meant all arms, to
include the cannon and warships to mount them. Since it is *you* is is arguing
for restrictions not presetn in the text, it is you who must find evidence
that they would not include such weapons within the meaning of arms in the
2nd.
Your argument, if extended to the 1st amendment, would have only newspapers
printed on hand opperated one sheet at a time presses, being protected under
freedom of the press. And speech would have no protection if telephones and
computers where used to faciltate its expression.
>
>> > > I have an understanding that it is
>> > > the most important Civil and Human Right I possess.
>> >
>> > Nonsense. The right to think, live and communicate are far more
>> > important, for without those one does not have the ability to defend
>> > oneself.
>>
>> Self-defense is paramount, coming before food, shelter, or anything else
>> on the need spectrum.
>
>Nonsense. Without food, you cannot survive to defend yourself. Without
>shelter your health will deteriorate to the point you could not possibly
>defend yourself, etc etc etc. You have one screwed up set of
>priorities.
All rights are equally important, one protects the other. In this forum we are
using our first amendment free speech rights to protect our second amendment
rights. Under other circumstances we might have to use our second amendment
right to protect our first or fourth amendment rights.
>
>> Even lower animals instinctively defend themselves,
>> without having deep thoughts or communicating.
>
>And they stupidly do so against overwhelming force that they should, if
>they were intelligent, avoid. You continue to support my point.
Right, that bear is really going to listen to reason. Yes animals do there
best to avoid such situtations, but when cornered they all fight.
>> Maybe the declaration of independence? "We hold these truths to be
>> self-evident..."
>
>Not a foundational document of this country. Sorry... but any time I
>see someone say something is self-evident I am wont to inquire as to by
>whose standards and under whose experience this would be self-evident.
Excuse me, the DoI *is* *the* foundational document of this country. It is not
part of the legal foundation, in the way that the Constitution is, but none
the less it captures the principals upon which our country was founded.
--
The Second Amendment is the RESET button
of the United States Constitution.
---Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Joe Sylvester
Don't Tread On Me !
Guerilla
In article <33E426...@cyberis.net>,
Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
|Where do you get they are saying it says what it does not say? Please
|show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had any
|concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
|bomber, a nuclear weapon, a germ warfare bug capable of eradicating life
|on a mass scale, etc etc etc... Oh, please show me they had these
Same ol technology arguement, Neal.
|concepts in mind when they mentioned 'arms' and that they would, if
|asked today, include such in the protected status of the second
|amendment for INDIVIDUAL ownership and use. Can you do this please?
Youre ignorant of history. The founders wanted the people to have the arms.
They would only be called upon to use or present them voluntarily during times
of war.
And 'self-evident' doesnt require reading from a label on a cell, or book.
Idiot.
Still on welfare, Comrade Neal?
Guerilla
In article <spam-b-gone*rbridges-010...@news.wt.net>,
spam-b-gone*rbri...@wt.net (R. D. Bridges) wrote:
|> > GW owned warships; the founders believed the people should retain all
arms,
|> > including weapons of mass destruction.
|>
|> RR: And I suppose God would agree with a nuke in every garage, nerve
|> gas in the basement, and anthrax toxin on the kitchen shelf? :-)
|> Thanks for your post, Guerila. You brightened my day.
Lets just think about this. Who is gonna sell me a nuke?
Suppose I do have the millions to buy one, or billions to create one, then
what? The answer is simple. The govt places a ring of patriots around my
neighborhood. Or perhaps, a recoiless rifle would do the job much cheaper, if
across the street from my silo. It is obvious, you havent thought this
through.
|While nukes in every garage is a sobering idea, the contention that the
|second protects an individual's right to all arms without restriction is
|not unsound.
|
|Having failed to amend the constitution to keep pace with modern
|developments in weapons of mass destruction, the cry to violate the second
|amendment in the name of necessity seems reasonable to many. Reasonable
|or not, an end-run on constitutional protections without following the
|authorized amendment process is dangerous.
Yes. I propose the BWW. Bureau of Words and Writings. The founders never
imagined or intended that the press would develope into xerox and internet and
fax machines. This technology is clearly a threat, and shouldnt be in the
hands of non-govt employees. Therefore, it is ordered that: no sentences
should contain more than 10 words. You dont need to fire off more than that
in any given spurt. Take a minute to reload your thoughts. No stockpiling
of written materials will be allowed. You may purchase one written
material per month, from now on. And watch the words you use. No assault
words will be tolerated. A list will be released of all banned words pending
its completion. Further, no writings may be disbursed in any form that will
reach more than 2 people at any given moment. Multiple launchings of ideas was
never imagined by the founders, and they certainly would frown upon such
frightening technological advances.
This 'technology' arguement doesnt sit too well with the socialists when you
fully implement it. Pass it along.
Neal Feldman
Joe Sylvester wrote:
>
> In article <33E426...@cyberis.net>, than...@cyberis.net says...
> >
> >
> >Rulings by the USSC have limited what the second amendment protects...
> >and all that you say above ignores that doing such is ILLEGAL. We are
> >discussing LEGAL practice of those second amendment rights... not
> >illegal ones.
>
> Which rulings are those? Do you mean the Miller decision which implied that
> the protection was to "any part of the ordinary military equipment".
Define 'ordinary'. If you mean that which the average grunt uses, I will
agree... rifle, bayonette, etc. Nukes? Nope. You show me the ruling
that supports such in private hands. Chemical/Biological? Again, show
me the rulings. There was at least one ruling stating that a sawed off
shotgun was not protected... far less of a public hazard than a nuke or
CBC weapon in private hands.
> >Where do you get they are saying it says what it does not say? Please
> >show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had any
> >concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
>
> Repeating weapons they knew about.
Not to the tune of several thousands of rounds per minute. Even the
Gatling gun was not known to them.
> They also knew about cannon, of which a
> howitzer is merely an evolved form.
Show me the cannon of that day that could fire a high explosive round
anywhere near the range of a modern howitzer and with anywhere near the
accuracy and firing rate of a modern howitzer.
And if you will recall, they did not support just anyone owning any
weapons at all... to keep totally in their mindset only the rich and
landowning WHITE MALES would be able to own anything. I guess they
would be right at home in northern Idaho.
> >bomber, a nuclear weapon, a germ warfare bug capable of eradicating life
> >on a mass scale, etc etc etc... Oh, please show me they had these
> >concepts in mind when they mentioned 'arms' and that they would, if
> >asked today, include such in the protected status of the second
> >amendment for INDIVIDUAL ownership and use. Can you do this please?
>
> In the absence of any apparrent limitation of the term "arms" in the text of
> the second amendment, one can only conclude that they meant all arms, to
> include the cannon and warships to mount them.
That is utter nonsense. And the USSC has never sided with your brand of
reckless idiocy.
> Since it is *you* is is arguing
> for restrictions not presetn in the text, it is you who must find evidence
> that they would not include such weapons within the meaning of arms in the
> 2nd.
Nope. If that were the case then you would have tons of USSC rulings on
your side. I have seen NONE on the side of such idiotic and reckless
sociopaths who would have unrestricted proliferation in private hands of
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. When you can produce some,
let me know.
> Your argument, if extended to the 1st amendment, would have only newspapers
> printed on hand opperated one sheet at a time presses, being protected under
> freedom of the press. And speech would have no protection if telephones and
> computers where used to faciltate its expression.
Sorry but your analogy is flawed. The nammer of speech does nothing to
increase harm of that speech. Are you going to try and compare the
danger to the general populace of the mechanical printing press to
privately owned nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? Oh this ought
to be a good one... oh do please continue... I want to see this!
> >> Self-defense is paramount, coming before food, shelter, or anything else
> >> on the need spectrum.
> >
> >Nonsense. Without food, you cannot survive to defend yourself. Without
> >shelter your health will deteriorate to the point you could not possibly
> >defend yourself, etc etc etc. You have one screwed up set of
> >priorities.
>
> All rights are equally important, one protects the other.
HE is the one who was claiming that his imaginary right to own a nuke
was more important than any other right could ever be. I called his
idiot statement what it was. Are you going to try and defend his
idiocy?
> In this forum we are
> using our first amendment free speech rights to protect our second amendment
> rights.
There is no threat to your second amendment rights. You can go down to
any number of stores and buy any reasonable firearm you desire.
Reasonable registration and regulation to keep weapons out of the hands
of those who should not have them for the purposes of public safety is a
minor inconvenience at most. But then again the NRA wants every
psychopathic sociopathic nutcase to have their ration of a personal
arsenal so as to kill more innocent people. This is what their rhetoric
ends up with... How dare the government try to protect a spouse from an
angry partner? Those people in Washington! What are they THINKING?!
> Under other circumstances we might have to use our second amendment
> right to protect our first or fourth amendment rights.
Actually the courts protect our rights pretty well... far more
effectively and efficiently. Lessee... 20 heavily armed BATF agents
want to illegally search my home... am I going to A) battle it out with
them and die, or B) let them in smiling all the while because I know
anything they find will be ruled inadmissable due to the illegal nature
of the search? Hmmmm... after careful consideration I think I will
choose B.
> >> Even lower animals instinctively defend themselves,
> >> without having deep thoughts or communicating.
> >
> >And they stupidly do so against overwhelming force that they should, if
> >they were intelligent, avoid. You continue to support my point.
>
> Right, that bear is really going to listen to reason.
Please reread what I said above... if you could not fight the bear you
might flee... many dumb animals will instead fight to the death in
idiotic futility.
> >> Maybe the declaration of independence? "We hold these truths to be
> >> self-evident..."
> >
> >Not a foundational document of this country. Sorry... but any time I
> >see someone say something is self-evident I am wont to inquire as to by
> >whose standards and under whose experience this would be self-evident.
>
> Excuse me, the DoI *is* *the* foundational document of this country.
BZZZT! Wrongo. The US Constitution is the foundational document of
this country.
> It is not
> part of the legal foundation, in the way that the Constitution is,
Thank you for admitting your error.
> but none
> the less it captures the principals upon which our country was > founded.
What principles are that? I am guaranteed to be happy? Well, that
would require, at this moment, for my bank account to have a million
dollars in it. Ooops.. just checked... not there. So I guess I am not
guaranteed happiness... therefore it is not a RIGHT. But the DOI speaks
of the RIGHT to happiness. Oh yes... PURSUIT of happiness... so I guess
I have a RIGHT to rob a bank... after all... it is part of my PURSUIT of
one million dollars, isn't it?
I think you get the point, or if you have any wit at all you SHOULD.
> The Second Amendment is the RESET button
> of the United States Constitution.
> ---Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Mr McKay knows nothing. A Constitutional Convention is the reset button
of the US Constitution... unless you think a disorganized rabble will
likely stand any better against the full force and might of the US
Military any more than Saddam Hussein's forces did? And at the time his
were considered the 3rd most powerful military on the planet. Where do
you think Skeeter and Bubba and their gun racked four-by rank on that
scale?
Oh... BTW... if the Convention were called today the second amendment
would likely vanish completely. Just thought you should know. The same
goes for virtually the entire bill of rights. Polls have shown this
consistently. Do beware what you ask for... you might actually get it.
Neal Feldman
>
> |Where do you get they are saying it says what it does not say? Please
> |show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had any
> |concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
> |on a mass scale, etc etc etc... Oh, please show me they had these
>
Your scorn in no way reduces its relevance or legitimacy. So, can you
deal with it, or do you still insist on playing Dodge and Dance?
> |concepts in mind when they mentioned 'arms' and that they would, if
> |asked today, include such in the protected status of the second
> |amendment for INDIVIDUAL ownership and use. Can you do this please?
>
> Youre ignorant of history.
Actually I would wager my knowledge of history is far deeper and far
broader than yours. The narrow tunnelvision and inconsistant hypocrisy
you continually demonstrate in your factless zealous rants prove this
completely.
> The founders wanted the people to have the arms.
That they knew of. I doubt that they would be as idiotically reckless
as you appear to be in promoting the concept of germ weapons for Bubba
and Skeeter or nuclear arsenals for Tim McVeigh.
> And 'self-evident' doesnt require reading from a label on a cell, or book.
Your lack of wit and comprehension capacity is becoming legendary.
> Idiot.
Looking in the mirror again apparently.
> Still on welfare, Comrade Neal?
Non sequitur and irrelevant. My personal life is not at issue, nor is my
source of income. I will say neither I am nor that I am not... if that
is the best that you can come up with in the vein of 'factual and
logical argument to defend your position' then you really are as
laughable as I have always considered you to be.
Neal Feldman
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Peter H. Proctor wrote:
>
> > Neal Feldman wrote:
> >
> > > Please show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had
> > > any concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
> > > bomber, a nuclear weapon, a germ warfare bug capable of eradicating
> > > life on a mass scale, etc etc etc...
>
> > Computer-set type, electronic broadcasting, or the internet. Yet all
> > of these come under the free speach and free press protections.
>
Actually quite incorrect... unless you can show me that computer set
type is as great a threat to the public as personally owned nukes. Go
ahead Bob... try. This ought to be very amusing indeed!
> If we had the current batch of statist running things in the
> 1890's, the telephone, they'd argue (taking advantage of the fact that
> telephones are not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights),
> was different from freedom of speech because, after all, people might
> discuss plans for commiting crimes over the phone. This is the same
> argument being used to create controls over the internet.
And guess what? The CDA was shot down. Now a quick question for you...
don't strain your little brain too hard on it though... when were legal
limits on who or what could own nukes, chemical or biological weapons
shot down in a similar manner? Hmmm? Tick... tock... tick... tock...
<Jeopardy soundtrack>... got your answer yet, Bob?
Bob Tiernan
On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Neal Feldman wrote:
> > The founders wanted the people to have the arms.
>
> That they knew of. I doubt that they would be as idiotically reckless
> as you appear to be in promoting the concept of germ weapons for Bubba
> and Skeeter or nuclear arsenals for Tim McVeigh.
Do you think they thought that only the government should be trusted
with any arms that might be developed in the future? If so, where's
your proof?
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Peter H. Proctor wrote:
> Neal Feldman wrote:
>
> > Please show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had
> > any concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
> > bomber, a nuclear weapon, a germ warfare bug capable of eradicating
> > life on a mass scale, etc etc etc...
> Strawman. The same could be said of the first amendment relative to
> Computer-set type, electronic broadcasting, or the internet. Yet all
> of these come under the free speach and free press protections.
Correct. If we had the current batch of statist running things in the
1890's, the telephone, they'd argue (taking advantage of the fact that
telephones are not mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights),
was different from freedom of speech because, after all, people might
discuss plans for commiting crimes over the phone. This is the same
argument being used to create controls over the internet.
Bob T.
Lone_Wolf
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #5 (NOV)
In <33E534...@cyberis.net> Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> writes:
#Joe Sylvester wrote:
#>
#> In article <33E426...@cyberis.net>, than...@cyberis.net says...
#> >
#> >
#> >Rulings by the USSC have limited what the second amendment protects...
#> >and all that you say above ignores that doing such is ILLEGAL. We are
#> >discussing LEGAL practice of those second amendment rights... not
#> >illegal ones.
#>
#> Which rulings are those? Do you mean the Miller decision which implied that
#> the protection was to "any part of the ordinary military equipment".
#Define 'ordinary'. If you mean that which the average grunt uses, I will
#agree... rifle, bayonette, etc. Nukes? Nope. You show me the ruling
#that supports such in private hands. Chemical/Biological? Again, show
#me the rulings. There was at least one ruling stating that a sawed off
#shotgun was not protected... far less of a public hazard than a nuke or
#CBC weapon in private hands.
Bzzt... Wrong answer. That ruling didn't say a sawed-off shotgun wasn't
protected, it said "we don't have enough evidence to say whether this
weapon's ownership is protected or not, we're remanding it to the lower
court so such evidence can be taken". US_vs_Miller.
#> >Where do you get they are saying it says what it does not say? Please
#> >show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had any
#> >concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
#>
#> Repeating weapons they knew about.
#Not to the tune of several thousands of rounds per minute. Even the
#Gatling gun was not known to them.
Designs existed for automatic weapons. Heck, going by projectile count,
a cannon loaded with grape-shot puts a LOT of rounds down range in one shot.
A blunderbuss doesn't put out quite as many, but still more than en entire
magazine from my pistol.
#> They also knew about cannon, of which a
#> howitzer is merely an evolved form.
#Show me the cannon of that day that could fire a high explosive round
#anywhere near the range of a modern howitzer and with anywhere near the
#accuracy and firing rate of a modern howitzer.
#And if you will recall, they did not support just anyone owning any
#weapons at all... to keep totally in their mindset only the rich and
#landowning WHITE MALES would be able to own anything. I guess they
#would be right at home in northern Idaho.
Nope, they didn't limit the right to voters, or citizens. The right was one
of the people. Now, APPLICATION of the law wasn't uniform, but then it
seldom is. Football players and other celebrities routinely get away with
violations of the law that would get common folks thrown in jail.
#> >bomber, a nuclear weapon, a germ warfare bug capable of eradicating life
#> >on a mass scale, etc etc etc... Oh, please show me they had these
#> >concepts in mind when they mentioned 'arms' and that they would, if
#> >asked today, include such in the protected status of the second
#> >amendment for INDIVIDUAL ownership and use. Can you do this please?
Better yet, I can show you where they ACKNOWLEDGED that times change, and the
law needs to change with them, and provided a means of doing just that. Few
people would have objections to an amendment allowing the regulation of
weapons of mass destruction. Some would, but not enough to prevent passage.
My main concern would be making sure the wording wasn't such that any firearm
could be banned under it, given how adept the gun control crowd is at
twisting plain language.
#>
#> In the absence of any apparrent limitation of the term "arms" in the text of
#> the second amendment, one can only conclude that they meant all arms, to
#> include the cannon and warships to mount them.
#That is utter nonsense. And the USSC has never sided with your brand of
#reckless idiocy.
Go read the US Constitution. Why provide for the issuance of Letters of Marque
if nobody has the warships to use them? And the question has never COME BEFORE
the US Supreme Court. It wasn't until this century that anybody tried to
regulate them, and there's only been one Supreme Court case involving the
Second Amendment this century, and it wasn't definitive.
#> Since it is *you* is is arguing
#> for restrictions not presetn in the text, it is you who must find evidence
#> that they would not include such weapons within the meaning of arms in the
#> 2nd.
#Nope. If that were the case then you would have tons of USSC rulings on
#your side. I have seen NONE on the side of such idiotic and reckless
#sociopaths who would have unrestricted proliferation in private hands of
#nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. When you can produce some,
#let me know.
Has to be a law before you can appeal the law to the Courts. Care to cite me
which law covers nuclear weapons?
#
#> Your argument, if extended to the 1st amendment, would have only newspapers
#> printed on hand opperated one sheet at a time presses, being protected under
#> freedom of the press. And speech would have no protection if telephones and
#> computers where used to faciltate its expression.
#Sorry but your analogy is flawed. The nammer of speech does nothing to
#increase harm of that speech. Are you going to try and compare the
#danger to the general populace of the mechanical printing press to
#privately owned nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? Oh this ought
#to be a good one... oh do please continue... I want to see this!
Printing press? Maybe not, but a good sound tech can manipulate the mood of
a crowd using subsonic frequencies. Easiest modification is to make people
irritable. Combine that with a charismatic speaker and you could have a
riot that wipes out the heart of a city. Actually, speech is frequently
more dangerous than any single weapon, even a nuke. Speech influences ideas,
and ideas spread wider than the lethal radius of almost any weapon. Course,
why does every anti-gunner that comes along drag up this strawman? Nukes
are expensive, just about anybody that can afford them can AFFORD to buy off
the local cops.
#> >> Self-defense is paramount, coming before food, shelter, or anything else
#> >> on the need spectrum.
#> >
#> >Nonsense. Without food, you cannot survive to defend yourself. Without
#> >shelter your health will deteriorate to the point you could not possibly
#> >defend yourself, etc etc etc. You have one screwed up set of
#> >priorities.
#>
#> All rights are equally important, one protects the other.
#HE is the one who was claiming that his imaginary right to own a nuke
#was more important than any other right could ever be. I called his
#idiot statement what it was. Are you going to try and defend his
#idiocy?
He argued for self-defense being paramount, as the right of free speech doesn't do your corpse much good. Nukes aren't much use for defense. Might be good
to ensure that you take a reasonable escort to Valhalla, but that's about it.
Same goes for Biological or Chemical weapons, they affect you as much as
anyone else. A machine gun, on the other hand, is generally safe for the person
behind it, while not being too friendly for whoever is looking down the muzzle.
#> In this forum we are
#> using our first amendment free speech rights to protect our second amendment
#> rights.
#There is no threat to your second amendment rights. You can go down to
#any number of stores and buy any reasonable firearm you desire.
#Reasonable registration and regulation to keep weapons out of the hands
#of those who should not have them for the purposes of public safety is a
#minor inconvenience at most. But then again the NRA wants every
#psychopathic sociopathic nutcase to have their ration of a personal
#arsenal so as to kill more innocent people. This is what their rhetoric
#ends up with... How dare the government try to protect a spouse from an
#angry partner? Those people in Washington! What are they THINKING?!
Define reasonable? Who gets to say what is 'reasonable'? What purpose does
registration serve, other than confiscation? What kind of 'minor inconvenience'
is it when you die while some bureaucrat is deciding whether to let you have
permission to exercise a right? Won't happen? Bullshit, has happened.
Interesting assertion about hte NRA, considering the official position of the
NRA is that restrictions on felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and children
being unable to legally have firearms are good things. Heck, the NRA even
campaigns to keep convicted murderers behind bars isntead of on parole or
probation. How dare they? As for people in Washington thinking, they don't.
They react and pontificate, usually taking some step that has no impact on
violent crime but which harasses the law-abiding, just so they can claim to
be doing something. Too bad Justice Thomas has indicated that the entire
regulatory scheme for firearms in this country appears to be Constitutionally
suspect (and Rhenquist and Scalia have stated that they support the individal
rights interpretation of the Second Amendment).
#> Under other circumstances we might have to use our second amendment
#> right to protect our first or fourth amendment rights.
#Actually the courts protect our rights pretty well... far more
#effectively and efficiently. Lessee... 20 heavily armed BATF agents
#want to illegally search my home... am I going to A) battle it out with
#them and die, or B) let them in smiling all the while because I know
#anything they find will be ruled inadmissable due to the illegal nature
#of the search? Hmmmm... after careful consideration I think I will
#choose B.
Of course, that presumes you aren't killed during the search, which given the
BATF is not a certainty. You still have the issues of the property damage
done during the search, the negative image of your neighbors, possible job
loss, being paraded in front of the press as a 'dangerous criminal', etc.
So you don't go to jail. You've still got a helluva lot of property damage
to repair, your reputation is suspect, you're unemployed, etc. And try to
collect from your insurance company on those circumstances. Not to mention,
how much of your property has been seized under asset forfeiture laws,
requiring you to go to court to try and get it back. Personally, I want
to change the laws to make illegal searches of a residence a felony.
#> >> Even lower animals instinctively defend themselves,
#> >> without having deep thoughts or communicating.
#> >
#> >And they stupidly do so against overwhelming force that they should, if
#> >they were intelligent, avoid. You continue to support my point.
#>
#> Right, that bear is really going to listen to reason.
#Please reread what I said above... if you could not fight the bear you
#might flee... many dumb animals will instead fight to the death in
#idiotic futility.
A human can't outrun a bear... But I've got a bit of a martial upbringing,
it'd be a difficult choice between killing the vermin now or hunting them down
later.... (and I've about come to the decision that if a government agency
operating in violation of the Constitution should target myself or my family,
it loses any pretense of legitimacy, and the only question is HOW I'll take
action. And who I'll call for backup).
#> >> Maybe the declaration of independence? "We hold these truths to be
#> >> self-evident..."
#> >
#> >Not a foundational document of this country. Sorry... but any time I
#> >see someone say something is self-evident I am wont to inquire as to by
#> >whose standards and under whose experience this would be self-evident.
#>
#> Excuse me, the DoI *is* *the* foundational document of this country.
#BZZZT! Wrongo. The US Constitution is the foundational document of
#this country.
Sort of. The Declaration of Independance was the foundation document for
the thirteen colonies. Those colonies banded together under the Articles
of Confederation. Finding problems with that arrangement, those colonies
then ratified the US Constitution.
#> It is not
#> part of the legal foundation, in the way that the Constitution is,
#Thank you for admitting your error.
#> but none
#> the less it captures the principals upon which our country was > founded.
#What principles are that? I am guaranteed to be happy? Well, that
#would require, at this moment, for my bank account to have a million
#dollars in it. Ooops.. just checked... not there. So I guess I am not
#guaranteed happiness... therefore it is not a RIGHT. But the DOI speaks
#of the RIGHT to happiness. Oh yes... PURSUIT of happiness... so I guess
#I have a RIGHT to rob a bank... after all... it is part of my PURSUIT of
#one million dollars, isn't it?
Except that by robbign the bank, you infringe upon the rights of others. But
you have the RIGHT to try and earn that million through your own labors,
investments, and other mechanisms.
#I think you get the point, or if you have any wit at all you SHOULD.
Somehow, I don't think his wit or lack thereof is the one in question...
James
#> The Second Amendment is the RESET button
#> of the United States Constitution.
#> ---Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
#Mr McKay knows nothing. A Constitutional Convention is the reset button
#of the US Constitution... unless you think a disorganized rabble will
#likely stand any better against the full force and might of the US
#Military any more than Saddam Hussein's forces did? And at the time his
#were considered the 3rd most powerful military on the planet. Where do
#you think Skeeter and Bubba and their gun racked four-by rank on that
#scale?
Go ask the US Army... They regularly look at the issue at the War College.
They tend to figure it won't be pretty and there are no guarantees. You see,
the US victory in Iraq was in large part reliant upon a safe base of operation,
a long supply line, and an enemy that could be isolated. The lack of cover
in the middle of the desert helped, too. Or are you forgetting the last
disorganized rabble that fought the US military? Bunch of rice farmers in
black pajamas? Not to mention, what makes you think the entire military
will disagree? At least one AP newswire story int he last few weeks pointed
to severe morale problems int eh Air Force. My contacts in the Army indicate
that they have their share, as well. Heck, a good number of the people you
are arguing with have military training and experience, some are still in.
I'm not, but have a number of friends who are. Heck, I still have a ruck
and full set of field gear in the back of my closet. No uniforms that fit,
those I didn't outgrow were swiped by my kid brother, but the AR-15 I own
is more accurate nad better maintained than any of the M16's I was ever
issued.
#Oh... BTW... if the Convention were called today the second amendment
#would likely vanish completely. Just thought you should know. The same
#goes for virtually the entire bill of rights. Polls have shown this
#consistently. Do beware what you ask for... you might actually get it.
Of course, such could precipitate a civil war even faster than the current
situation. Then again, poll taking is an inexact science, it's very difficult
to accurately predict a person's future actons based solely on poll results.
Not to mention, getting anything out of committee typically takes a lot of
compromising, but given that those who want their rights restored seem to be
the main arguers for a ConCon, who would be more motivated to sit through
all the procedural crap?
For a fairly accurate picture of the intricacies of insurgencies, mass political
movement, etc, I'd recommend some books by Jerry Pournelle: The Mercenary,
Prince of Mercenaries, Prince of Sparta, and Go Tell The Spartans.
Course, you can also read Gueverra...
James
#--
#Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!"
#Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
#than...@cyberis.net
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 18:49:38 -0700, Neal Feldman
<than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
>Bob Tiernan wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Peter H. Proctor wrote:
>>
>> > Neal Feldman wrote:
>> >
>> > > Please show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had
>> > > any concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
>> > > bomber, a nuclear weapon, a germ warfare bug capable of eradicating
>> > > life on a mass scale, etc etc etc...
>>
>> > Strawman. The same could be said of the first amendment relative to
>> > Computer-set type, electronic broadcasting, or the internet. Yet all
>> > of these come under the free speach and free press protections.
>>
>> Correct.
>
>Actually quite incorrect... unless you can show me that computer set
>type is as great a threat to the public as personally owned nukes. Go
>ahead Bob... try. This ought to be very amusing indeed!
I can easily show you that it's as dangerous as any firearm you care
to mention.
Of course you may never have heard of "What Is To Be Done", "Mein
Kampf" or Mao's "Little Red Book".
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Robert...@teleport.com
> Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> writes:
[snip]
> Now a quick question for you...
> don't strain your little brain too hard on it though... when were legal
> limits on who or what could own nukes, chemical or biological weapons
> shot down in a similar manner? Hmmm? Tick... tock... tick... tock...
> <Jeopardy soundtrack>... got your answer yet, Bob?
>>>>
What difference does it make? Those with the money and the inclination
to build nuclear/chemical/biological weapons will do (as did the cult in
Japan), laws or no laws (criminals do that you know). Those who are not
criminals would have no use for nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Morton
>Guerilla wrote:
>>
>> In article <33E426...@cyberis.net>,
>> Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
>>
>> |Where do you get they are saying it says what it does not say? Please
>> |show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had any
>> |concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
>> |bomber, a nuclear weapon, a germ warfare bug capable of eradicating life
>> |on a mass scale, etc etc etc... Oh, please show me they had these
>>
>> Same ol technology arguement, Neal.
>
>Your scorn in no way reduces its relevance or legitimacy. So, can you
>deal with it, or do you still insist on playing Dodge and Dance?
It's trivially easy to deal with.
Do you believe that political documents prepared on a PC with
Pagemaker are subject to censorship because neither computers nor
software were known to the founding fathers?
If not, your argument regarding guns allegedly known to the founding
fathers is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.
Joe Sylvester
In article <33E534...@cyberis.net>, than...@cyberis.net says...
>
>Joe Sylvester wrote:
>>
>> In article <33E426...@cyberis.net>, than...@cyberis.net says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Rulings by the USSC have limited what the second amendment protects...
>> >and all that you say above ignores that doing such is ILLEGAL. We are
>> >discussing LEGAL practice of those second amendment rights... not
>> >illegal ones.
>>
>> Which rulings are those? Do you mean the Miller decision which implied that
>> the protection was to "any part of the ordinary military equipment".
>
>Define 'ordinary'. If you mean that which the average grunt uses, I will
>agree... rifle, bayonette, etc. Nukes? Nope. You show me the ruling
>that supports such in private hands. Chemical/Biological? Again, show
>me the rulings. There was at least one ruling stating that a sawed off
>shotgun was not protected... far less of a public hazard than a nuke or
>CBC weapon in private hands.
That's the Miller case. SOS not covered because the court could not take
judicial notice that such was any part of the ordinary military equipemtn.
However this was nonsense, short barreled shotguns had been used extensively
in WWI. They were called Trench Sweepers or Trench Brooms. Subsequently, this
was in the late 30s, SOSs where used in WWII, mostly in the Pacific and Asian
Theaters, and again quite extensively in Vietnam, reportedly many also went
over to the big sandbox for Desert Shield/Storm.
The degreee of public hazzard was not an issue. A latter court ("Cases")
determined that if the Miller courts ruling was accepted as final and
complete, which they obviously did not) there would be no legal barrior to the
private possesion of most any weapon, from garrots to anti-aircraft weapons,
since the most humble had been used by guerilla forces in Europe (civilized
Europe) and the others where definitely part of the ordinary military
equipment. I don't recall either case mentioning Chemical weapons, used in
WWI, and nukes had not yet been invented, or at least made public yet.
>
>> >Where do you get they are saying it says what it does not say? Please
>> >show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had any
>> >concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
>>
>> Repeating weapons they knew about.
>
>Not to the tune of several thousands of rounds per minute. Even the
>Gatling gun was not known to them.
So? They also didn't know about the internet, but speech is still protected
when promulgated here, or high speed computer type set presses, but their
output is still covered by freedom of the press.
>> They also knew about cannon, of which a
>> howitzer is merely an evolved form.
>
>Show me the cannon of that day that could fire a high explosive round
>anywhere near the range of a modern howitzer and with anywhere near the
>accuracy and firing rate of a modern howitzer.
So now its a matter of degree is it. Range, weight, etc, and not one of
principle. Not.
The point is that cannon of the day, loaded with mail or grape, could make a
hell of a lot bigger mess than any "assault weapon" or even a full auto
assault rifle, yet they did not choose to make an exception to the general
right of the people to keep and bear arms.
>
>And if you will recall, they did not support just anyone owning any
>weapons at all... to keep totally in their mindset only the rich and
>landowning WHITE MALES would be able to own anything. I guess they
>would be right at home in northern Idaho.
Maybe, although those were the only folks who could vote, the people was
considered to be a much larger group. They also made no such restrictions on
the meaning of the people in the second amendment. It does not say electors,
or citizens or any other such, it says the people.
At the time the states, and not the federal government determined the
qualifications for voting.
>
>That is utter nonsense. And the USSC has never sided with your brand of
>reckless idiocy.
And it has with yours? Citation please, be specific, case, paragraph and so
forth.
>> Since it is *you* is is arguing
>> for restrictions not presetn in the text, it is you who must find evidence
>> that they would not include such weapons within the meaning of arms in the
>> 2nd.
>Nope. If that were the case then you would have tons of USSC rulings on
>your side. I have seen NONE on the side of such idiotic and reckless
>sociopaths who would have unrestricted proliferation in private hands of
>nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. When you can produce some,
>let me know.
Can't find any huh?
>
>> Your argument, if extended to the 1st amendment, would have only newspapers
>> printed on hand opperated one sheet at a time presses, being protected
under
>> freedom of the press. And speech would have no protection if telephones and
>> computers where used to faciltate its expression.
>
>Sorry but your analogy is flawed. The nammer of speech does nothing to
>increase harm of that speech. Are you going to try and compare the
>danger to the general populace of the mechanical printing press to
>privately owned nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? Oh this ought
>to be a good one... oh do please continue... I want to see this!
The pen is mighter than the sword, so it stands to reason that modern methods
of communication, used for propaganda, are much more dangerous than the slow
methods of yore. Just look what Hilter and his buddies were able to do with
it.
>There is no threat to your second amendment rights. You can go down to
>any number of stores and buy any reasonable firearm you desire.
Who gets to decide what is reasonable. You?
>Reasonable registration and regulation to keep weapons out of the hands
>of those who should not have them for the purposes of public safety is a
>minor inconvenience at most. But then again the NRA wants every
Except that such regulation never seems to manage to keep arms out of the
hands of criminals, nutcases and so forth. Ask the English/Scots at Dunblane,
ask the Australians/Tasmanians , or for that matter ask Texas State Rep.
Suzanna Gratia-Hupp,who was prevented, by such "reasonable regulations" from
having her revolver close at hand when one of those nutcases drove his truck
through the window/wall of the Luby's in Killeen Texas and started killing
people, in the end to include both of her parents. She had a "shot" but when
she reached into her purse, the weapon was not there, since she feared loss of
her livelyhood as a state licensed chiropracter, should she be caught with a
concealed weapon. She now has a Concealed handgun liscense one with a serial
number in the single digits, having been instrumental in the passage of the
law providing for CHL.
>psychopathic sociopathic nutcase to have their ration of a personal
>arsenal so as to kill more innocent people. This is what their rhetoric
>ends up with... How dare the government try to protect a spouse from an
>angry partner? Those people in Washington! What are they THINKING?!
That they don't like the idea of several tens of millions of armed citizens
out in fly over country, come the day that they have to raise taxes to 80%
of lifetime earnings just to keep up with debt service. (I didn't make that
number up either, it was in an official executive branch budget document)
>> Under other circumstances we might have to use our second amendment
>> right to protect our first or fourth amendment rights.
>
>Actually the courts protect our rights pretty well... far more
>effectively and efficiently. Lessee... 20 heavily armed BATF agents
>want to illegally search my home... am I going to A) battle it out with
>them and die, or B) let them in smiling all the while because I know
>anything they find will be ruled inadmissable due to the illegal nature
>of the search? Hmmmm... after careful consideration I think I will
>choose B.
You loose, the courts have let the BATF get away with that, and more. Go
directly to jail.
>
>> >> Even lower animals instinctively defend themselves,
>> >> without having deep thoughts or communicating.
>> >
>> >And they stupidly do so against overwhelming force that they should, if
>> >they were intelligent, avoid. You continue to support my point.
>>
>> Right, that bear is really going to listen to reason.
>
>Please reread what I said above... if you could not fight the bear you
>might flee... many dumb animals will instead fight to the death in
>idiotic futility.
Flee a bear? Good luck, those bears are much faster, especially over broken
ground than you or I could ever hope to be. Bears usually just want to be
left alone, sort of like some people, but when they want your ass, well you'd
better have a large heavy duty "persuader" at hand, or they'll likely get your
ass, quite literally.
>
>> >> Maybe the declaration of independence? "We hold these truths to be
>> >> self-evident..."
>> >
>> >Not a foundational document of this country. Sorry... but any time I
>> >see someone say something is self-evident I am wont to inquire as to by
>> >whose standards and under whose experience this would be self-evident.
>>
>> Excuse me, the DoI *is* *the* foundational document of this country.
>
>BZZZT! Wrongo. The US Constitution is the foundational document of
>this country.
It provides the legal foundation it is true, however that does not change the
fact that the DoI provided the philosophical and moral foundation. The
replacement of the Articles of Confederation by the Constitution likely was of
major interest only to politicians, excepting perhaps the Bill of Rights, but
the DoI changed the lives of virtually everyone.
>
>> It is not
>> part of the legal foundation, in the way that the Constitution is,
>
>Thank you for admitting your error.
>
>> but none
>> the less it captures the principals upon which our country was > founded.
>
>What principles are that? I am guaranteed to be happy? Well, that
No, can't even read that correctly no wonder you have problems with the
equally clear second amendment. You have the right to the "pursuit" of
happiness. Whether you obtain it is up to you.
>would require, at this moment, for my bank account to have a million
>dollars in it. Ooops.. just checked... not there. So I guess I am not
>guaranteed happiness... therefore it is not a RIGHT. But the DOI speaks
>of the RIGHT to happiness. Oh yes... PURSUIT of happiness... so I guess
>I have a RIGHT to rob a bank... after all... it is part of my PURSUIT of
>one million dollars, isn't it?
No more than I have the "exercise" my second amendment RKBA and shoot you. My
rights end where your's begin, and vice versa.
>Mr McKay knows nothing. A Constitutional Convention is the reset button
>of the US Constitution... unless you think a disorganized rabble will
>likely stand any better against the full force and might of the US
>Military any more than Saddam Hussein's forces did? And at the time his
>were considered the 3rd most powerful military on the planet. Where do
>you think Skeeter and Bubba and their gun racked four-by rank on that
>scale?
Oh, Skeete and Bubba is it. I'll have you know that many many here are ex
members, officer and enlisted, of the "mighty" US military. We have a fair
notion of what it is good at, and what it is not. It's never been too good at
guerilla warfare, but toe to toe with the military of another country, that we
are good at ,very good at.
Besides everyone in that mightly armed force has taken an oath to support and
defend the Constitution, many of them would remember that should it come down
to pressin that particular reset button. I would thin that a Constitutional
Convention would be more akin to Cntrl-Alt-Delete, which does the job much of
the time, and is ceretainly to be prefered over a hard reset. If nothing else,
recovery is usualy quicker.
OH, BTW, I'm one of those who took that oath. I still take it seriously. "I,
... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion"
I percieve a potfull of domestic enemies these days, and not only of the
second amendment, but the first and fourth as well.
BTW, I tend to agree that individuals should not have nukes or biological
weapons, I just think it takes a Constitutional amendment to revise the second
amendment, and to give the federal government the power to legislate on the
matter.
>
>Oh... BTW... if the Convention were called today the second amendment
>would likely vanish completely. Just thought you should know. The same
>goes for virtually the entire bill of rights. Polls have shown this
>consistently. Do beware what you ask for... you might actually get it.
Followed immediately by a bloody revolution, even if only by a minority of
folks who would *insist* that their rights be observed.
--
The Second Amendment is the RESET button
of the United States Constitution.
---Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Albert Isham
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.970803...@kelly.teleport.com>, Bob
Tiernan says...
>your proof?
>
In the Second Amendment the founders addressed only the arms pertaining to
organized militias. Private arms for private use were not addressed. I'm
sure the founders assumed that private arms would always be subject to the
rule of law of the people.
See http://www.us.net/phoenix/597intro.html
HerrGlock
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Neal Feldman wrote:
>
> > > The founders wanted the people to have the arms.
> >
> > That they knew of. I doubt that they would be as idiotically reckless
> > as you appear to be in promoting the concept of germ weapons for Bubba
> > and Skeeter or nuclear arsenals for Tim McVeigh.
You're absolutely right. That's why they put such ideas in as "innocent
until proven guilty" into the whole justice system. As soon as a person
proves himself/herself unable to handle responsibility, proven by a
conviction from a jury of peers, that person no longer has the rights of
other citizens. Preemptive strikes against rights are not part of the
consititution.
--
DVC -
HerrGlock
Robert...@teleport.com
> ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) writes:
[snip]
> In the Second Amendment the founders addressed only the arms pertaining to
> organized militias. Private arms for private use were not addressed. I'm
> sure the founders assumed that private arms would always be subject to the
> rule of law of the people.
>>>>
And upon what, exactly, do you base that assumption?
"Amendment II
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."
It does not say, the "right of members of a well-regulated militia", but
"the people". Nor does it say, "the State shall determine who and who
shall not have the right to keep and bear arms'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scout
In article <5s3ggn$obk$1...@gypsy.cad.gatech.edu>, gt6...@cad.gatech.edu says...
>
>X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #5 (NOV)
>
>In <33E534...@cyberis.net> Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> writes:
>#> >Where do you get they are saying it says what it does not say? Please
>#> >show me in any of their writings that the founding fathers had any
>#> >concept at all of a machine gun, a howitzer, a smart bomb, stealth
>#>
>#> Repeating weapons they knew about.
>
>#Not to the tune of several thousands of rounds per minute. Even the
>#Gatling gun was not known to them.
>
>Designs existed for automatic weapons.
Heck, working copies existed. In fact Congress paid for the conversion of some
100 rifles to full auto in ?1776? ?1785? somewhere in that time frame, can
find the specific date if necessary. Would the framers expect alterations in
design, and increased performance. Certainly, they were some of the people
working on such advancements.
--
- Scout
.
A well read electorate being necessary to the advancement of
a free society, the right of the people to keep and read
books shall not be infringed.
.
Who has the rights, and in what manner can they be expressed?
Clayton E. Cramer
Neal Feldman wrote:
>
> Joe Sylvester wrote:
> > Which rulings are those? Do you mean the Miller decision which implied that
> > the protection was to "any part of the ordinary military equipment".
>
> Define 'ordinary'. If you mean that which the average grunt uses, I will
> agree... rifle, bayonette, etc. Nukes? Nope. You show me the ruling
> that supports such in private hands. Chemical/Biological? Again, show
> me the rulings. There was at least one ruling stating that a sawed off
> shotgun was not protected... far less of a public hazard than a nuke or
> CBC weapon in private hands.
> Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!"
> Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
Since no one seriously believes that nukes or chemical or
biological weapons are protected by the Second Amendment,
this is a strawman challenge. It is precisely because
gun control advocates don't even believe that weapons
considerably less dangerous than what soldiers carry
(so-called "assault weapons") should be allowed to law-
abiding adults that there is so much fear.
And you are incorrect about what the Supreme Court ruled in
U.S. v. Miller (1939). They ruled that the trial judge
had erred in taking it under judicial notice that a sawed-
off shotgun was protected, and that he should have required
expert testimony on the subject (which would have been
easy to get).
I find it especially amusing that a person with your
signature lines should be making excuses for limiting
possession of deadly weapons to the government. With
your views in your state, you are more likely to need
weapons to discourage government oppression than I would
in the same place.
Clayton E. Cramer
Joe Sylvester wrote:
> In the absence of any apparrent limitation of the term "arms" in the text of
> for restrictions not presetn in the text, it is you who must find evidence
> that they would not include such weapons within the meaning of arms in the
> 2nd.
> Joe Sylvester
The "apparent limitation of the term 'arms'" can be found by examining
dictionaries of the time. It meant that which you could pick up and
carry. There is no evidence that the term was so broad as to include
cannon or warships.
I discuss this in detail in _For The Defense of Themselves and the
State_.
Guerilla
In article <33E609...@dlcc.com>,
that
|> > the protection was to "any part of the ordinary military equipment".
|>
|> Define 'ordinary'. If you mean that which the average grunt uses, I will
|> agree... rifle, bayonette, etc. Nukes? Nope. You show me the ruling
|> that supports such in private hands. Chemical/Biological? Again, show
|> me the rulings. There was at least one ruling stating that a sawed off
|> shotgun was not protected... far less of a public hazard than a nuke or
|> CBC weapon in private hands.
|> Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!"
|> Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
|
|biological weapons are protected by the Second Amendment,
I do. It seems none of you have thought this out.
I have chemical weapons. Several different types. Close-range, launchable,
as well as--well, I used to have--chemical devices to throw.
Got a whole bin full of bio weapons outside in the tool shed, too.
No, I dont think you folks have thought this through. Hell, too much oxygen
kills, so I guess the hospitals and metal shops are chock full of bio weapons.
Poison kills.
William Hughes
On 4 Aug 1997 09:54:38 GMT, in talk.politics.guns ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
>In the Second Amendment the founders addressed only the arms pertaining to
>organized militias. Private arms for private use were not addressed. I'm
>sure the founders assumed that private arms would always be subject to the
>rule of law of the people.
Ok, Isham, once more. Maybe you will answer this time...
What part of "right of the people" don't you understand?
====================================================================================================
William Hughes, San Antonio, Texas, USA NRA LSC2838R (1996)
"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." Second Amendment, United States Constitution
(Delete underscores in address before replying)
Albert Isham
In article <01bca1b0$c18a17a0$75b0...@jefferson.ftlsystems>, Robert N.
Newshutz says...
>
>> In the Second Amendment the founders addressed only the arms pertaining
>to
>> organized militias. Private arms for private use were not addressed.
>I'm
>> sure the founders assumed that private arms would always be subject to
>the
>> rule of law of the people.
>>
>Then you assumed wrong. Read the 9th and 10th ammendments. Any power
>not granted by the Constitution to the federal government is not allowed to
>the
>federal government.
>
>Also many quotes from the founders support the individual right to bear
>arms.
Many quotes? Cite one.
>
>But since all this has been pointed out to you repeatedly you are just
>blowing
>smoke.
>
This is a personal attack which adds nothing to the debate.
The NRA has never overturned a gun control law in federal court on the basis
of the Second Amendment.
They have abandoned use of the Second Amendment in court and now use it only
for propaganda.
Albert Isham
In article <33e5f7d3...@news.flash.net>, William Hughes says...
>>organized militias. Private arms for private use were not addressed. I'm
>>sure the founders assumed that private arms would always be subject to the
>>rule of law of the people.
>
>
>What part of "right of the people" don't you understand?
The underlying principle of the Constitution is that the people have the
power to make the laws necessary to govern themselves. The Second Amendment
was included in the BoR because of the founders fear of standing armies and
their desire to shield the military power of the states from encroachment by
the central government. It granted no special right for private individuals
to have guns shielded from all laws like sacred cows.
See http://www.us.net/phoenix/lobby.html
Pat
Lone_Wolf wrote:
> Designs existed for automatic weapons. Heck, going by projectile count,
> a cannon loaded with grape-shot puts a LOT of rounds down range in one shot.
> A blunderbuss doesn't put out quite as many, but still more than en entire
> magazine from my pistol.
> Nope, they didn't limit the right to voters, or citizens. The right was one
> of the people. Now, APPLICATION of the law wasn't uniform, but then it
> seldom is. Football players and other celebrities routinely get away with
> violations of the law that would get common folks thrown in jail.
>
> #> >bomber, a nuclear weapon, a germ warfare bug capable of eradicating life
> #> >on a mass scale, etc etc etc... Oh, please show me they had these
> #> >concepts in mind when they mentioned 'arms' and that they would, if
> #> >asked today, include such in the protected status of the second
> #> >amendment for INDIVIDUAL ownership and use. Can you do this please?
>
> Better yet, I can show you where they ACKNOWLEDGED that times change, and the
> law needs to change with them, and provided a means of doing just that. Few
> people would have objections to an amendment allowing the regulation of
> weapons of mass destruction. Some would, but not enough to prevent passage.
> My main concern would be making sure the wording wasn't such that any firearm
> could be banned under it, given how adept the gun control crowd is at
> twisting plain language.
Actually, allowing the Government to outlaw or ban ANY weapon is
unacceptable. There really isn't any more risk to our society without
such a ban on "weapons of mass destruction". Take Japan for example.
One would be hard pressed to argue that any country has a more tightly
controlled arms availability, yet the Anritsu Cult obtained and made
"Chemical Warfare" agents. In otherwords, the law made NO difference
and only allows the precedent of government entry into a protected civil
rights area.
There are other methods to make these agents unavailable, restricting
arms availability is NOT the way to do it.
Our current state of affairs exists becouse we allowed the National
Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 to pass. Give the
government an inch, and they will take several miles at gunpoint later.
Pat H.
--
Self Defense is an Intrinsic, Human, Civil Right PROTECTED by The Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
http://www.netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html
Neal Feldman
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Neal Feldman wrote:
>
> > > The founders wanted the people to have the arms.
> >
> > That they knew of. I doubt that they would be as idiotically reckless
> > as you appear to be in promoting the concept of germ weapons for Bubba
> > and Skeeter or nuclear arsenals for Tim McVeigh.
>
> with any arms that might be developed in the future? If so, where's
> your proof?
Irrelevant.
You are trying to defend Bubba and Skeeter owning them. Please stick to
the topic and stop trying to change the subject when you are losing the
argument, Bob.
Clearly the military will have whatever military hardware it can. Duh.
--
Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!"
Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
Robert N. Newshutz
Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote in article
<5s48su$6lh$1...@nw001.infi.net>...
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.970803...@kelly.teleport.com>,
Bob
> Tiernan says...
> >
> >On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Neal Feldman wrote:
> >
> >> > The founders wanted the people to have the arms.
> >>
> >> That they knew of. I doubt that they would be as idiotically reckless
> >> as you appear to be in promoting the concept of germ weapons for Bubba
> >> and Skeeter or nuclear arsenals for Tim McVeigh.
> >
> >
> >Do you think they thought that only the government should be trusted
> >with any arms that might be developed in the future? If so, where's
> >your proof?
> >
> In the Second Amendment the founders addressed only the arms pertaining
to
> organized militias. Private arms for private use were not addressed.
I'm
> sure the founders assumed that private arms would always be subject to
the
> rule of law of the people.
>
Then you assumed wrong. Read the 9th and 10th ammendments. Any power
not granted by the Constitution to the federal government is not allowed to
the
federal government.
Also many quotes from the founders support the individual right to bear
arms.
But since all this has been pointed out to you repeatedly you are just
blowing
smoke.
R. D. Bridges
In article <33E534...@cyberis.net>, Neal Feldman
<than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
> Joe Sylvester wrote:
> >
> > In article <33E426...@cyberis.net>, thanatos@cyberisIn article
<33E534...@cyberis.net>, Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
> Joe Sylvester wrote:
[snip]
> > In the absence of any apparrent limitation of the term "arms" in the text of
> > the second amendment, one can only conclude that they meant all arms, to
> > include the cannon and warships to mount them.
>
> That is utter nonsense. And the USSC has never sided with your brand of
> reckless idiocy.
An appeal to authority (in this case the Supreme Court) is not an argument
of a case on its merits. The Supreme Court has made, and will certainly
continue to make, mistakes. Their opinions are just that - opinions.
That they have the force of law speaks more to the corruption of the
original separation of powers than to the merits of your argument.
> > Since it is *you* is is arguing
> > for restrictions not presetn in the text, it is you who must find evidence
> > that they would not include such weapons within the meaning of arms in the
> > 2nd.
>
> Nope. If that were the case then you would have tons of USSC rulings on
> your side. I have seen NONE on the side of such idiotic and reckless
> sociopaths who would have unrestricted proliferation in private hands of
> nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. When you can produce some,
> let me know.
Yada yada. See above.
> > Your argument, if extended to the 1st amendment, would have only newspapers
> > printed on hand opperated one sheet at a time presses, being protected under
> > freedom of the press. And speech would have no protection if telephones and
> > computers where used to faciltate its expression.
>
> Sorry but your analogy is flawed. The nammer of speech does nothing to
> increase harm of that speech. Are you going to try and compare the
> danger to the general populace of the mechanical printing press to
> privately owned nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? Oh this ought
> to be a good one... oh do please continue... I want to see this!
The analogy is sound. Tell Stalin or Hitler speech was harmless. They
killed millions using speech as their primary weapon.
> > >> Self-defense is paramount, coming before food, shelter, or anything else
> > >> on the need spectrum.
> > >
> > >Nonsense. Without food, you cannot survive to defend yourself. Without
> > >shelter your health will deteriorate to the point you could not possibly
> > >defend yourself, etc etc etc. You have one screwed up set of
> > >priorities.
> >
> > All rights are equally important, one protects the other.
>
> HE is the one who was claiming that his imaginary right to own a nuke
> was more important than any other right could ever be. I called his
> idiot statement what it was. Are you going to try and defend his
> idiocy?
I argued that self-defense was paramount. Using nukes was one instance of
that general right. And I refrained from calling you an idiot while
discussing some of your goofy ideas.
> > In this forum we are
> > using our first amendment free speech rights to protect our second amendment
> > rights.
>
> There is no threat to your second amendment rights. You can go down to
> any number of stores and buy any reasonable firearm you desire.
> Reasonable registration and regulation to keep weapons out of the hands
> of those who should not have them for the purposes of public safety is a
> minor inconvenience at most. But then again the NRA wants every
> psychopathic sociopathic nutcase to have their ration of a personal
> arsenal so as to kill more innocent people. This is what their rhetoric
> ends up with... How dare the government try to protect a spouse from an
> angry partner? Those people in Washington! What are they THINKING?!
Sarcasm duly noted, as is the gaping hole in your reasoning. Where in the
second amendment does it mention the federal government regulating
firearms, or deciding what was reasonable? The only mention of the right
says it shall not be infringed. Period. Regulation is infringing, as is
restricting ownership to those weapons that are "reasonable" by
governmental standards.
[snip]
> > >> Maybe the declaration of independence? "We hold these truths to be
> > >> self-evident..."
> > >
> > >Not a foundational document of this country. Sorry... but any time I
> > >see someone say something is self-evident I am wont to inquire as to by
> > >whose standards and under whose experience this would be self-evident.
> >
> > Excuse me, the DoI *is* *the* foundational document of this country.
>
> BZZZT! Wrongo. The US Constitution is the foundational document of
> this country.
Nice sound effect. But the declaration established the colonies as free
agents not under British rule, and as such, was a foundational document of
the country. The constitution is the law under which the several states
assemble themselves.
> > It is not
> > part of the legal foundation, in the way that the Constitution is,
>
> Thank you for admitting your error.
>
> > but none
> > the less it captures the principals upon which our country was > founded.
>
> What principles are that? I am guaranteed to be happy? Well, that
> would require, at this moment, for my bank account to have a million
> dollars in it. Ooops.. just checked... not there. So I guess I am not
> guaranteed happiness... therefore it is not a RIGHT. But the DOI speaks
> of the RIGHT to happiness. Oh yes... PURSUIT of happiness... so I guess
> I have a RIGHT to rob a bank... after all... it is part of my PURSUIT of
> one million dollars, isn't it?
Your grasp of the wording of the declaration of independence is matched
only by your skill in understanding the second amendment.
> I think you get the point, or if you have any wit at all you SHOULD.
>
> > The Second Amendment is the RESET button
> > of the United States Constitution.
> > ---Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
>
> Mr McKay knows nothing. A Constitutional Convention is the reset button
> of the US Constitution... unless you think a disorganized rabble will
> likely stand any better against the full force and might of the US
> Military any more than Saddam Hussein's forces did? And at the time his
> were considered the 3rd most powerful military on the planet. Where do
> you think Skeeter and Bubba and their gun racked four-by rank on that
> scale?
An unorganized rabble defied the most powerful army on earth to found this
country. Your assertions are for the most part inane, and your
conclusions are unsound.
[snip].net says...
Neal Feldman
no one of consequence wrote:
>
> ]Actually quite incorrect... unless you can show me that computer set
> ]type is as great a threat to the public as personally owned nukes. Go
> ]ahead Bob... try. This ought to be very amusing indeed!
>
> drugs/treatments each patient gets. That's one that immediately comes to
> mind. Anyone got others?
That is not free speech. But other than that little fact that blows your
entire analogy to hell, well... you know...
> ]And guess what? The CDA was shot down. Now a quick question for you...
> ]don't strain your little brain too hard on it though... when were legal
> ]limits on who or what could own nukes, chemical or biological weapons
> ]shot down in a similar manner? Hmmm? Tick... tock... tick... tock...
> ]<Jeopardy soundtrack>... got your answer yet, Bob?
>
> The Answer is:
>
> The law that was passed banning private ownership of nuclear weapons.
I know the law was passed... my question is when was that passed law
blasted out of existance by a USSC ruling that it was unconstititonal?
You just don't get it, do you?
Guerilla
In article <33E776...@surf.com>, Pat <fas...@surf.com> wrote:
|Lone_Wolf wrote:
|...Right PROTECTED by the Second Amendment...
Why protected? Wouldnt acknowledged be a better term? Protected means that
without the B o Rs the govt can attack a Right. Theyre doing that now.
Bob Tiernan
On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Neal Feldman wrote:
> no one of consequence wrote:
> > The law that was passed banning private ownership of nuclear weapons.
>
> I know the law was passed... my question is when was that passed law
> blasted out of existance by a USSC ruling that it was unconstititonal?
But Neal, despite the fact that the Bill of Rights bans ex post facto
laws the Supreme Court in recent years ruled to allow it in a taxation
case son long as the law didn't reach back "too far". Now that the
government can reach back a little bit, the precedent is now there for
the Court to say, about a future retroactive law, "Since six months
is okay, one year is, too." And after that 2 years, then 3 years, etc.
So, Neal, the USSC hasn't tossed out the law prohibiting private
ownership of nuclear weapons? That doesn't prove anything.
Bob T.
Guerilla
In article <clw-0608...@ip-pdx07-12.teleport.com>,
c...@teleport.com () wrote:
|In article <5sa79o$g3g$1...@nadine.teleport.com>, Robert...@teleport.com
|wrote:
|
|
|> Nope. Try again.
|>
|> How can you "quote" something and not read it?
|
|Done all the time.
You just did it.
|> "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."
|>
|> It does NOT say, "only those people who are members of a militia", it
|> says "the people", meaning....ah, "the people".
|>
|Note the comma in that sentence, not a period. They connected well
|regulated militia to people keeping and bearing arms. It is one thought,
|all parts connected, not two different statements. It is this
|disconnection of the two phrases that has led to the gun prolifferation
|problem.
Look, dont interrupt a thread, change the newsgroups, and then go on about
things that have been already discussed.
Dependant clauses have been discussed. Well regulated has been discussed. As
has militia, both unorganized and organized.
The only prolifferation problem we have is its limitations. We are hopelessly
outgunned by the govt. Fortunately, we have them beat due to our size. And
theyre shrinking size during a revolution, according to all the 29 palms type
of studies.
Robert...@teleport.com
> c...@teleport.com () writes:
> spam-b-gone*rbri...@wt.net (R. D. Bridges) wrote:
[inaccurate attributions deleted - learn how to edit a post Waltemath]
> > An unorganized rabble defied the most powerful army on earth to found this
> > country. Your assertions are for the most part inane, and your
> > conclusions are unsound.
> Not exactly, they might have defied the Brisish, but did not defeat them.
Then why the hell did "Brisish" [sic] go all to the bother of signing the
Treaty of Paris in 1782?
And why did Nixon pull out of Vietnam?
And why did Russia pull out of Afghanistan?
Not because of the total defeat of the armies in question, but because it
wasn't worth the effort anymore- that's the true goal in any war, semantic
wrangling over the term "defeat" notwithstanding.
> The militia (or as you called it, "unorganized rabble") was of no or very
> limited use during that war. The only troops who could be depended upon
> were the trained "Continentials". I invite you to review the conduct of
> several battles. You might start with Cowpens and Guiliford Courthouse.
> Here were two battles where the militia were used to their best effect, but
> in each case when the battle was closed, they were useless.
So what? That is why the phrase "well-regulated militia" was employed in
the Second Amendment, meaning, "well-trained". So, it's the duty of "the
people" to be a well-trained militia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide
Robert said:
>There's a Latin phrase that cover such "arguments": reductio ad absurdum.
>In other words, when someone lacks a cogent argument, they hyper-inflate
>a non-sensical and probably impossible scenerio...
Hmmmmm....much like you and your ideological fellows on this group.
JZ
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ His Driving Is Like That Of Jehu - He Drives Like A Maniac -- 2 Kings 9:20 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Neal Feldman
Sorry but plans and vague ideas are a far cry from reality.
My statement still stands... the founding fathers had only one concept
of the destructive power of nukes... and that is their idea of the hand
of God... no man to them would ever have such power.
--
Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!"
Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
Guerilla
In article <33E900...@cyberis.net>,
Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
|Guerilla wrote:
|>
|> In article <33E81D...@cyberis.net>,
|> Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
|>
|> |You are trying to defend Bubba and Skeeter owning them. Please stick to
|>
|
|What bigotry? I see none in my text above.
Classic Feldy. Absolutely perfect response. Thank you.
Thank you.
Neal Feldman
Sorry Bob but I am not talking about ex post facto anything. I am saying
that such laws exist... this is unquestionable fact. I am stating that
the gun nuts have the opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of
said laws. This is also an unquestionable fact. I am stating that no
one has done so, or at least no one has succeeded in getting such laws
declared unconstitutional in any way, or more specifically on a second
amendment basis. This is a matter of record, or lack thereof.
So what the hell are YOU ranting off about, Bob?
William Hughes
On 5 Aug 1997 17:28:17 GMT, in talk.politics.guns ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
>In article <33e5f7d3...@news.flash.net>, William Hughes says...
>>On 4 Aug 1997 09:54:38 GMT, in talk.politics.guns ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert
>Isham) wrote:
>>
>>>organized militias. Private arms for private use were not addressed. I'm
>>>sure the founders assumed that private arms would always be subject to the
>>>rule of law of the people.
>>
>>
>>What part of "right of the people" don't you understand?
>
>The underlying principle of the Constitution is that the people have the
>power to make the laws necessary to govern themselves. The Second Amendment
>was included in the BoR because of the founders fear of standing armies and
>their desire to shield the military power of the states from encroachment by
>the central government. It granted no special right for private individuals
>to have guns shielded from all laws like sacred cows.
*sigh*
"It granted no special right for private individuals to have guns..."
First off, the Constitution didn't *grant* an damned thing; it *recognised* pre-existing rights.
Second, you seem to think that "right of the people" is a collective reference. It is not.
Or is it only a *group* of people who:
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.
or:
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.
And the usual Isham-spam sig...
>See http://www.us.net/phoenix/lobby.html
>
>The NRA has never overturned a gun control law in federal court on the basis
>of the Second Amendment.
>They have abandoned use of the Second Amendment in court and now use it only
>for propaganda.
====================================================================================================
Guerilla
In article <33E902...@cyberis.net>,
Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
|Sorry but plans and vague ideas are a far cry from reality.
What the heck is this, then? Is this your way of saying you wont be
responding to the 300+ line followups people have sent you. You bit off a
huge chunk. Swallow it, you racist pig.
Robert...@teleport.com
> "Clayton E. Cramer" <cra...@dlcc.com> writes:
[snip]
> So tell me, do you have any problem with 7-11 starting to tell nerve gas
> in 20 gallon containers for $2? I can see some problems that might
> result from this -- can you?
There's a Latin phrase that cover such "arguments": reductio ad absurdum.
In other words, when someone lacks a cogent argument, they hyper-inflate
a non-sensical and probably impossible scenerio and say, "Hey, what if
you could buy weapons-grade Plutonium at Safeway for $1.25 a kilo?
How would like THAT?" Well, for one thing, no business is going to even
consider openly selling elements of "weapons of mass destruction" to the
general public...you know, law suits and such.
[Further Fantasy-Island speculation deleted]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Spanhel
On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, William Hughes wrote:
> Wasn't there a case a few years ago where some hacker(s) broke into a hospital's computer system and
> wound up damaging the control programs for a cancer treatment (radiation) system? Killed a couple of
> people from radiation overdose?
It was diabetics. And a Law & Order episode.
Computer literate folks, ya know, they're modern day
witches.
-Steph
--
If you ask me, they should'a stopped with
"Congress shall make no law." sspa...@efn.org
Neal Feldman
Lone_Wolf wrote:
>
> #Not to the tune of several thousands of rounds per minute. Even the
> #Gatling gun was not known to them.
>
> Designs existed for automatic weapons. Heck, going by projectile count,
> a cannon loaded with grape-shot puts a LOT of rounds down range in one shot.
Are you that illogically desperate? I guess to you a shotgun is a
machine gun... If you do not comprehend what I mean when I speak of
rounds per minute then there is little benefit in having you display
your ignorance of the topic.
> #Show me the cannon of that day that could fire a high explosive round
> #anywhere near the range of a modern howitzer and with anywhere near the
> #accuracy and firing rate of a modern howitzer.
No answer to this, eh? I find that interesting.
> #And if you will recall, they did not support just anyone owning any
> #weapons at all... to keep totally in their mindset only the rich and
> #landowning WHITE MALES would be able to own anything. I guess they
> #would be right at home in northern Idaho.
>
> Nope, they didn't limit the right to voters, or citizens. The right was one
> of the people.
Sorry but their application is what matters.
Did Washington or Jefferson support their slaves owning gun? Hmmmm? Or
are you going to claim that blacks are not people? And if the Founding
Fathers did not consider blacks to be people, then what of their alleged
infallibility and deific nature? Hmmmmm?
> #> >bomber, a nuclear weapon, a germ warfare bug capable of eradicating life
> #> >on a mass scale, etc etc etc... Oh, please show me they had these
> #> >concepts in mind when they mentioned 'arms' and that they would, if
> #> >asked today, include such in the protected status of the second
> #> >amendment for INDIVIDUAL ownership and use. Can you do this please?
>
> Better yet, I can show you where they ACKNOWLEDGED that times change, and the
> law needs to change with them, and provided a means of doing just that. Few
> people would have objections to an amendment allowing the regulation of
> weapons of mass destruction. Some would, but not enough to prevent passage.
The point I am making is that there are nutcases out there like Tiernan,
Guerilla, et al who DO advocate that nonsense. THAT is what I am poking
holes in, in case you missed it. But you still did not answer my
challenge, did you? You just dodged, danced and tried to change the
subject.
> My main concern would be making sure the wording wasn't such that any firearm
> could be banned under it, given how adept the gun control crowd is at
> twisting plain language.
Well considering how few firearms are actually banned I find little to
worry about regarding your alleged claims of their adeptness. With over
200 million firearms in this nation in private hands I would think this
shows their lack of adeptness if total gun ban is their goal.
For the record I am not in favor of a total gun ban... never have been.
However many weapons have no place in private hands and I have no
problems with reasonable and rational regulation and restrictions on gun
ownership or carry/use in public.
> #> In the absence of any apparrent limitation of the term "arms" in the text of
> #> the second amendment, one can only conclude that they meant all arms, to
> #> include the cannon and warships to mount them.
>
> #That is utter nonsense. And the USSC has never sided with your brand of
> #reckless idiocy.
>
> Go read the US Constitution.
I have. Consider my statement above repeated.
> Why provide for the issuance of Letters of Marque
> if nobody has the warships to use them?
That was at a time when chaos reigned and when the nation had no
standing military sufficient for its needs. Are you claiming that
letters of marque have been issued lately? Can you date the last such
issuance in this country?
> #> Since it is *you* is is arguing
> #> for restrictions not presetn in the text, it is you who must find evidence
> #> that they would not include such weapons within the meaning of arms in the
> #> 2nd.
>
> #Nope. If that were the case then you would have tons of USSC rulings on
> #your side. I have seen NONE on the side of such idiotic and reckless
> #sociopaths who would have unrestricted proliferation in private hands of
> #nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. When you can produce some,
> #let me know.
>
> Has to be a law before you can appeal the law to the Courts.
It is already law that US Citizens cannot own such. So where is the
NRA, self proclaimed champion of the second amendment with their court
challenges against these laws? Hmmmm? Could it possibly be that even
they do not subscribe to that particular idiocy? Hmmmm?
> #> Your argument, if extended to the 1st amendment, would have only newspapers
> #> printed on hand opperated one sheet at a time presses, being protected under
> #> freedom of the press. And speech would have no protection if telephones and
> #> computers where used to faciltate its expression.
>
> #Sorry but your analogy is flawed. The nammer of speech does nothing to
> #increase harm of that speech. Are you going to try and compare the
> #danger to the general populace of the mechanical printing press to
> #privately owned nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? Oh this ought
> #to be a good one... oh do please continue... I want to see this!
>
> Printing press? Maybe not, but a good sound tech can manipulate the mood of
> a crowd using subsonic frequencies.
Sorry but sonic weapons (which is by the way what you are describing) do
not fall under the first amendment... when is what the topic was. Can
you please stick to the subject? Hmmmm?
> Easiest modification is to make people
> irritable. Combine that with a charismatic speaker and you could have a
> riot that wipes out the heart of a city.
And, excuse me if I am wrong, but A) there are laws against inciting a
riot, and B) inciting to riot has never been protected speech under the
first amendment.
Back to the old drawing board for your red herrings....
> Actually, speech is frequently
> more dangerous than any single weapon, even a nuke. Speech influences ideas,
> and ideas spread wider than the lethal radius of almost any weapon.
To a point, true... but word of things spead all over the planet before
computers, word processing, television, radio, telephones, etc. As such
their introduction did nothing to increase the harm or danger of any
given speech.
Again, are you going to compare, in danger to the safety of the general
populace, the telephone to say a virulent airborne strain of Ebola?
Hmmmm?
> Course,
> why does every anti-gunner that comes along drag up this strawman?
What straw man? Guerilla was the one to promote the concept of
personally owned nukes etc... I am merely arguing against that concept
being legitimate. So if you agree it is unreasonable then why are you
arguing against me? Hmmmmm?
> Nukes
> are expensive, just about anybody that can afford them can AFFORD to buy off
> the local cops.
I also listed chemical and biological weapons... not all of which are
expensive... and a small yield nuke can be made for less than a house
costs.
> #There is no threat to your second amendment rights. You can go down to
> #any number of stores and buy any reasonable firearm you desire.
> #Reasonable registration and regulation to keep weapons out of the hands
> #of those who should not have them for the purposes of public safety is a
> #minor inconvenience at most. But then again the NRA wants every
> #psychopathic sociopathic nutcase to have their ration of a personal
> #arsenal so as to kill more innocent people. This is what their rhetoric
> #ends up with... How dare the government try to protect a spouse from an
> #angry partner? Those people in Washington! What are they THINKING?!
>
> Define reasonable? Who gets to say what is 'reasonable'?
The majority.. as always. Where have YOU been?
> What purpose does registration serve, other than confiscation?
We have had registration of firearms in this country for what? A
century or more? How much recent confiscations have you heard about of
legally owned weapons? What purpose is registration? To do what one
can to keep weapons out of the hands of those who should not have them.
> What kind of 'minor inconvenience'
> is it when you die while some bureaucrat is deciding whether to let you have
> permission to exercise a right?
And how many times has this happened? Shall we compare it to how many
angry partners have gone off in a huff to get a gun and come back to
shoot their partner? Hmmmmm? And if a person can go to the gun shop
they can go to the police station if their life is in danger.
> Won't happen? Bullshit, has happened.
Not in anything other than statistically insignificant numbers and
anecdotal cases (which are meaningless in an actual assessment).
> Too bad Justice Thomas has indicated that the entire
> regulatory scheme for firearms in this country appears to be Constitutionally
> suspect
Ah yes... Uncle Tom... the man listed by the bar as BARELY QUALIFIED to
sit on the bench (meaning some school gave him a law degree and he was
not a convicted felon... geeee... such astounding qualifications for a
man who is guilt of lying to congress...). You will excuse me as I
ignore anything Uncle Tom has to say on any subject.
> #Actually the courts protect our rights pretty well... far more
> #effectively and efficiently. Lessee... 20 heavily armed BATF agents
> #want to illegally search my home... am I going to A) battle it out with
> #them and die, or B) let them in smiling all the while because I know
> #anything they find will be ruled inadmissable due to the illegal nature
> #of the search? Hmmmm... after careful consideration I think I will
> #choose B.
>
> Of course, that presumes you aren't killed during the search, which given the
> BATF is not a certainty.
Oh? The BATF has killed people while searching when those people were
not actively resisting in an armed manner (ie-shooting at the BATF)?
Please... oh PLEASE do cite the cases of these events... for I will
admit that I have never heard of a single case of such. Could you
please do that, or at the very least admit that you are just farting in
the wind?
> You still have the issues of the property damage
> done during the search,
And shooting it out with them first is going to REDUCE the property
damage? Hmmmm? How do you figure that one?
> the negative image of your neighbors,
And of course your dying in a hail of gunfire (much of which enters the
homes of your neighbors) is just going to endear the hell out of you to
them, now isn't it? Hmmmmmm?
> possible job loss,
Well you get your self perforated a few hundred times and it is highly
unlikely you will be reporting to work in time anytime soon, if ever.
Your point?
> being paraded in front of the press as a 'dangerous criminal', etc.
Better than being paraded before a coroner as a slab of dead meat where
they can say anything they like and I am highly unlikely to be able to
respond. Boy, I guess Jewell would have been far better off for the FBI
to have shot him instead of now, eh? Hmmmmm?
> So you don't go to jail. You've still got a helluva lot of property damage
> to repair, your reputation is suspect, you're unemployed, etc. And try to
> collect from your insurance company on those circumstances.
I have no doubts my policy would pay off... but what you so astoundingly
fail to take in is that for all those potential downsides, YOU ARE STILL
ALIVE. You are not a ROTTING CORPSE who guilty or not they will merely
parade out as an armed and dangerous nutcase... of course guilty.. why
else would he gun it out with 20 armed agents in a sure bid at suicide?
You just don't get it, do you?
> Not to mention,
> how much of your property has been seized under asset forfeiture laws,
> requiring you to go to court to try and get it back.
And being killed is a much better outcome to you, eh? Where did you
attend Martyr School?
> Personally, I want
> to change the laws to make illegal searches of a residence a felony.
Little argument from me on that... or better yet a flat fee... the govt
violates my constitutional rights and for each such violation they pay
me $1 Million. Hey, works for me. And you can make it a felony too if
you like.
> #> Right, that bear is really going to listen to reason.
>
> #Please reread what I said above... if you could not fight the bear you
> #might flee... many dumb animals will instead fight to the death in
> #idiotic futility.
>
> A human can't outrun a bear...
You just don't get it, do you?
> #> Excuse me, the DoI *is* *the* foundational document of this country.
>
> #BZZZT! Wrongo. The US Constitution is the foundational document of
> #this country.
>
> Sort of.
ROTFLU! It *IS*... nothing 'sort of' about it. Deal with it.
> The Declaration of Independance was the foundation document for
> the thirteen colonies.
BZZZT! Wrong again. The colonies existed long before the DoI so it can
hardly be considered their foundational document. The DoI was a
nastygram to King George. That's it. It was not a foundational document
of anything.
> Those colonies banded together under the Articles
> of Confederation.
And at THAT time the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION were their foundational
documents. Not the DoI.
You just don't get it, do you?
> #What principles are that? I am guaranteed to be happy? Well, that
> #would require, at this moment, for my bank account to have a million
> #dollars in it. Ooops.. just checked... not there. So I guess I am not
> #guaranteed happiness... therefore it is not a RIGHT. But the DOI speaks
> #of the RIGHT to happiness. Oh yes... PURSUIT of happiness... so I guess
> #I have a RIGHT to rob a bank... after all... it is part of my PURSUIT of
> #one million dollars, isn't it?
>
> Except that by robbign the bank, you infringe upon the rights of others.
But by their not allowing me to just get the Million Dollars which would
make me happy they are infringing on MY right to the pursuit of my
happiness. Tricky things, those rights... eh?
You just don't get it, do you?
> But
> you have the RIGHT to try and earn that million through your own labors,
> investments, and other mechanisms.
Sorry... assume I have not the fiscal wherewithal to invest to make a
million dollars, nor the skills to earn it in a single lifetime...
besides... the happiness would be to have the million dollars NOW. Am I
to take it, if you consider what the DoI lists are actually guaranteed
rights that those rights CAN be limited, infringed upon, etc? That
seems to be the tack you are taking here.
> #I think you get the point, or if you have any wit at all you SHOULD.
>
> Somehow, I don't think his wit or lack thereof is the one in question...
Then you clearly don't think.
You just don't get it, do you?
> #> The Second Amendment is the RESET button
> #> of the United States Constitution.
> #> ---Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
>
> #Mr McKay knows nothing. A Constitutional Convention is the reset button
> #of the US Constitution... unless you think a disorganized rabble will
> #likely stand any better against the full force and might of the US
> #Military any more than Saddam Hussein's forces did? And at the time his
> #were considered the 3rd most powerful military on the planet. Where do
> #you think Skeeter and Bubba and their gun racked four-by rank on that
> #scale?
>
> Go ask the US Army... They regularly look at the issue at the War College.
> They tend to figure it won't be pretty and there are no guarantees. You see,
> the US victory in Iraq was in large part reliant upon a safe base of operation,
> a long supply line, and an enemy that could be isolated. The lack of cover
> in the middle of the desert helped, too. Or are you forgetting the last
> disorganized rabble that fought the US military? Bunch of rice farmers in
> black pajamas?
They did not fight the full force of the US Military. Anyone who thinks
they did is deluding themselves. We were playing a balance of power
game... the idea seemed to be to just continue the conflict.
Like I said... you want to take on the US Military with guns, go right
ahead and try... I will wait in Canada or somewhere else safe while the
dust settles.
If I wanted to take on the US Military I would do it by destroying their
entire infrastructure, crashing the power grids, scrambling their
organization and making a mess of their supply lines. Who would have to
fire a shot? Hack their systems and get them to blow away their own
units. But then again I guess that is just a little less Ramboesque for
the Guts and Glory crowd and their romanticized delusions of being able
to take on the US Military with their popguns.
> Not to mention, what makes you think the entire military
> will disagree? At least one AP newswire story int he last few weeks pointed
> to severe morale problems int eh Air Force. My contacts in the Army indicate
> that they have their share, as well. Heck, a good number of the people you
> are arguing with have military training and experience, some are still in.
Sorry but you cannot have it both ways... if you are speaking of
opposing the entire US Military then that is the topic... if you are
talking about dividing the military and getting it to fight itself then
Bubba and Skeeter and their 4by are irrelevant.
> #Oh... BTW... if the Convention were called today the second amendment
> #would likely vanish completely. Just thought you should know. The same
> #goes for virtually the entire bill of rights. Polls have shown this
> #consistently. Do beware what you ask for... you might actually get it.
>
> Of course, such could precipitate a civil war even faster than the current
> situation.
How do you figure that? A Constitutional Convention gets called because
the people demand it. So are you claiming that the people would rebel
against something they themselves called? That they would disagree with
rules they themselves passed? Where are you getting this from?
> Then again, poll taking is an inexact science, it's very difficult
> to accurately predict a person's future actons based solely on poll results.
Not that difficult. In close cases where the margin of error is greater
than the difference in outcomes it is indecisive. However polling is
actually a fairly good guage if done properly. Reputable pollsters do
it properly... reducing bias to minimums. To claim that statistical
analysis has no legitimacy is a very illinformed position to take... are
you sure you want to do that?
Guerilla
In article <33E82A...@cyberis.net>,
Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
|Lone_Wolf wrote:
|>
|> #Not to the tune of several thousands of rounds per minute. Even the
|> #Gatling gun was not known to them.
|>
|> Designs existed for automatic weapons. Heck, going by projectile count,
|> a cannon loaded with grape-shot puts a LOT of rounds down range in one
shot.
|
|Are you that illogically desperate? I guess to you a shotgun is a
|machine gun... If you do not comprehend what I mean when I speak of
|rounds per minute then there is little benefit in having you display
|your ignorance of the topic.
No comrade feldman, youre ignorant. There were plans at the time for muzzle
loading machine guns. Id explain it to you, but thatd be a waste of my time.
[snip long post]
Feldy, why dont you study Isham. Then perhaps when you understand the
anti-arguments, you can come back without looking so foolish.
William Hughes
On 5 Aug 1997 23:24:20 GMT, in talk.politics.guns wol...@bermuda.io.com (no one of consequence)
wrote:
>Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
>]Actually quite incorrect... unless you can show me that computer set
>]type is as great a threat to the public as personally owned nukes. Go
>]ahead Bob... try. This ought to be very amusing indeed!
>
>Break into a hospital's file system. Muddle with the information on what
>drugs/treatments each patient gets. That's one that immediately comes to
>mind. Anyone got others?
Wasn't there a case a few years ago where some hacker(s) broke into a hospital's computer system and
wound up damaging the control programs for a cancer treatment (radiation) system? Killed a couple of
people from radiation overdose?
William Hughes (Delete underscores in address before replying)
St. Dismas Infirmary for the Incurably Informed
(c. Pat Cadigan, _Synners_, used with permission)
Clayton E. Cramer
Pat wrote:
> Actually, allowing the Government to outlaw or ban ANY weapon is
> unacceptable. There really isn't any more risk to our society without
> such a ban on "weapons of mass destruction". Take Japan for example.
> One would be hard pressed to argue that any country has a more tightly
> controlled arms availability, yet the Anritsu Cult obtained and made
> "Chemical Warfare" agents. In otherwords, the law made NO difference
> and only allows the precedent of government entry into a protected civil
> rights area.
So tell me, do you have any problem with 7-11 starting to tell nerve gas
in 20 gallon containers for $2? I can see some problems that might
result from this -- can you?
What self-defense use will you have for nerve gas?
> There are other methods to make these agents unavailable, restricting
> arms availability is NOT the way to do it.
Such as? Right now, I can go out and buy all the components at any
Wal-Mart to make enough poison gas to kill hundreds of people (in a
confined space like an office building) for about $100. Fortunately,
this knowledge is limited to probably 1-2% of the population, and
nearly all are sufficiently rational and moral that we wouldn't do
such a thing. But if you sold canisters marked, "Mass Murder Gas"
for $100, so that the other 98% of the population could buy it over
the counter, I am sure that it would be used: for extortion, for
mass murder ala Patrick Purdy, or just for the entertainment of
watching people die.
And unlike a gun, such a weapon can't be used defensively.
> Pat H.
Dick Winningstad
Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote in article
<5s9imt$onr$1...@nw001.infi.net>...
> In article <33E776...@surf.com>, Pat says...
> >
>
> > Actually, allowing the Government to outlaw or ban ANY weapon is
> >unacceptable.
>
> But since we are the government, you are telling we the people that we
cannot
> regulate the most lethal instruments among us.
>
The Bill of Rights was set up, in part, as one way to prevent a tyranny of
the majority. So yes I would be willing to tell the people they can not
regulate firearms ownership. Just as I would be willing to tell the people
they can not tell me I have to be a Christian, Muslim, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn from Clio
Dick Winningstad lem...@teleport.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
c...@teleport.com
In article <5sa306$ai5$5...@glisan.hevanet.com>, guer...@hevanet.com
(Guerilla) wrote:
I HOPE your friends come for it. So
> I can FUCK them, just like Ill FUCK you If I ever run across you and you try
> and take it.
Fuck them with a weapon? Very original. I guess if fucking is what you
use your weapons for, it is OK for you to keep them. It is those who shoot
ramdomly and without provication that I object to.
--------------------------
Fas est et ab hoste docerii.
--------------------------
C. L. Waltemath
Bob Tiernan
On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Guerilla wrote:
> Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
>
> |You are trying to defend Bubba and Skeeter owning them.
>
> Your bigotry is shining through, again, as always.
That's right, Neal. You have something against
"trailer trash", or southern accents?
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On 6 Aug 1997, Albert Isham wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> >And for the zillionth time, "we" are not the government. As we
> >speak, there are the usual number of secret deals being made,
> >and money passed under the table, and so on. How "we" doin',
> >Albert?
> Just because your Congressman makes secret deals doesn't mean that
> they all do.
>
> Next time vote for the Democrat.
Like Dan Rostenkowski? Like Vic Fazio? Like Tom Foley?
Like so many other D's? Get real.
Oh, sure. First of all, I vote for no Republicans, and no
Democrats. So if you thought I voted for a Republican you
got off to a bad start.
Next, you are living in that idiotic world of two parties in
which you must convince yourself that one is bad, and the
other good, and therefore must make statements such as
that one above.
Bob T.
Neal Feldman
no one of consequence wrote:
>
> ]> > The law that was passed banning private ownership of nuclear weapons.
> ]> I know the law was passed... my question is when was that passed law
> ]> blasted out of existance by a USSC ruling that it was unconstititonal?
>
I do not think so...
> I know of no law that bans private ownership of nuclear weapons.
So you contend that it is legal for you to own a nuke... is that your
statement? I suggest you do a little research on the subject. There
have been cases of students or others creating small ones, only to have
them seized instantly upon govt knowing about them... Weapons grade
isotopes are controlled substances for all intents and purposes and you
have to have an absolutely airtight reason not related to weapons for
possessing them.
Try again...
> I am asking YOU to back up your claim that they are banned by stating the
> law in question.
I do not know the specific criminal code but I do know it is illegal.
Just as I know it is illegal for any random person to own a fully
functional machine gun.
Neal Feldman
Guerilla wrote:
>
> In article <33E900...@cyberis.net>,
> Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
> |Guerilla wrote:
> |>
> |> In article <33E81D...@cyberis.net>,
> |>
> |> |You are trying to defend Bubba and Skeeter owning them. Please stick to
> |>
> |> Your bigotry is shining through, again, as always.
> |
>
> Classic Feldy. Absolutely perfect response. Thank you.
I thought so... in that you made an accusation without any
substantiation... or explanation... and then when challenged on it you
make a non sequitur ad hominem attack.
Classic Guerilla. Thank you.
c...@teleport.com
In article <spam-b-gone*rbridges-050...@news.wt.net>,
spam-b-gone*rbri...@wt.net (R. D. Bridges) wrote:
> In article <33E534...@cyberis.net>, Neal Feldman
> <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
> An unorganized rabble defied the most powerful army on earth to found this
> country. Your assertions are for the most part inane, and your
> conclusions are unsound.
Not exactly, they might have defied the Brisish, but did not defeat them.
The militia (or as you called it, "unorganized rabble") was of no or very
limited use during that war. The only troops who could be depended upon
were the trained "Continentials". I invite you to review the conduct of
several battles. You might start with Cowpens and Guiliford Courthouse.
Here were two battles where the militia were used to their best effect, but
in each case when the battle was closed, they were useless.
--------------------------
Neal Feldman
Guerilla wrote:
>
> In article <33E902...@cyberis.net>,
> Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
>
> |Sorry but plans and vague ideas are a far cry from reality.
>
> What the heck is this, then? Is this your way of saying you wont be
> responding to the 300+ line followups people have sent you.
I am willing to stand corrected that someone may have had a plan or a
concept for a rapid fire (by the contemporary standards) firearm
pre-1800... I however made the statement that the FRAMERS of the
constitution did not know of such a device existing. And people have
theories today of cold fusion... but does anyone actually have cold
fusion working? Also I spoke specifically about ROFs of thousands of
rounds per minute... like the Minigun... I seriously doubt that the
primitive ideas of machine guns back then had rates of fire even a
fraction of that.
But if you think those followups disproved anything substantial to my
argument or in any way supported your idiotic concept that the second
amendment protects an individual right to own nukes, nerve gas, and the
like, you are even more deluded than I already know you to be.
> Swallow it, you racist pig.
Ah... namecalling now... how mature of you. And factless namecalling at
that since I am no racist... it is you who spout off like a leader of
the Christian Identiry White Supremacist organizations. And who is
hiding behind the anonymous remailer? Hmmmm?
R. D. Bridges
In article <5s7nbv$uhp$1...@nw003.infi.net>, ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert
Isham) wrote:
> In article <01bca1b0$c18a17a0$75b0...@jefferson.ftlsystems>, Robert N.
> Newshutz says...
> >
>
> >> In the Second Amendment the founders addressed only the arms pertaining
> >to
> >> organized militias. Private arms for private use were not addressed.
> >I'm
> >> sure the founders assumed that private arms would always be subject to
> >the
> >> rule of law of the people.
> >>
> >Then you assumed wrong. Read the 9th and 10th ammendments. Any power
> >not granted by the Constitution to the federal government is not allowed to
> >the
> >federal government.
> >
> >Also many quotes from the founders support the individual right to bear
> >arms.
>
> Many quotes? Cite one.
You've been cited many. You'd just ignore them again if someone re-posted them.
> >But since all this has been pointed out to you repeatedly you are just
> >blowing
> >smoke.
> >
> This is a personal attack which adds nothing to the debate.
No, this is an observation that you are disingenuous and disseminate false
information even after being shown it is in error.
> The NRA has never overturned a gun control law in federal court on the basis
> of the Second Amendment.
> They have abandoned use of the Second Amendment in court and now use it only
> for propaganda.
Again, so what? This proves nothing.
Neal Feldman
> > in 20 gallon containers for $2? I can see some problems that might
> > result from this -- can you?
>
That is a reference to a logical fallacy. However the term is not
applied correctly by you above. You promote the concept of anyone being
able to sell such, own such, etc.. and that any limitation, restriction
or regulation of such is unconstitutional in your opinion.
He was merely highlighting a legitimate outcome of your
conceptualization which illustrates the farcical folly of such ideas
like yours.
> In other words, when someone lacks a cogent argument, they hyper-inflate
> a non-sensical and probably impossible scenerio and say, "Hey, what if
> you could buy weapons-grade Plutonium at Safeway for $1.25 a kilo?
> How would like THAT?"
However that is not what he did. In the bizarro world you would have us
live in that scenario is not only not ridiculous, but outright
predictable.
> Well, for one thing, no business is going to even
> consider openly selling elements of "weapons of mass destruction" to the
> general public...you know, law suits and such.
Oh? If it is LEGAL to sell then they can sell without fear of any
lawsuit. You would have it be LEGAL to do so. Or are gun dealers
successfully sued all the time? Last I checked there has not been a
single gun dealer successfully sued over a legal gun sale. Not one. Can
you show otherwise?
Francis A. Ney, Jr.
In article <33E8D6...@dlcc.com> cra...@nospamdlcc.com writes:
> > > I find it especially amusing that a person with your
> > > signature lines should be making excuses for limiting
> > > possession of deadly weapons to the government.
> >
> > So long as the govt does not abuse them it is far safer in their hands
> > than in the hands of, say, Tim McVeigh.
>
> Except the government does abuse them -- quite often, even. Or
> do names like Rodney King, Geronimo Pratt, and Randy Weaver mean
> nothing to you? Does the Chicago PD's attack on Black Panther
> headquarters bring back any memories? Do you know about the
> FBI's campaign to disrupt the antiwar movement?
Or how about an even more recent abuse in Chicago, where a couple was arrested
for telling Klinton "you suck" in public.
I wonder when Klinton signed the executive order making lese majesty a crime.
(In violation of the first amendment, but since when does the government obey
the constitution?)
---
Frank Ney WV/EMT-B VA/EMT-A N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Sponsor, BATF Abuse page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
West Virginia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NOTICE: Flaming email received will be posted to the appropriate newsgroups
- --
"The conduct of our Nation's affairs always demands that public servants
discharge their duties under the Constitution and laws of this Republic with
fairness and a proper spirit of subservience to the people whom they are sworn
to serve. Public servants cannot be arbitrarily selective in their treatment
of citizens, dispensing equity to those who please them and withholding it
from those who do not. Respect for the law can only be fostered if citizens
believe that those responsible for implementing and enforcing the law are
themselves acting in conformity with the law."
- William F. Downes, United States District Judge
Carol Ward v. United States
79 AFTR2d Par. 97-964 No. 95-WY-810-WD (2 Jun 1997)
Guerilla
In article <5satpp$h86$3...@nw001.infi.net>,
ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
|I have observed that name-calling is a debate tactic often used by the gun
|lobby. It adds no facts or insights but is useful to divert attention from
|the paucity of valid arguments by the gun lobby. Your unprovoked hostility
|towards me shows that you have been indoctrinated with the false stereotype
|of the opponent of the gun lobby. You have been brainwashed with hate and
|fear.
Yes, if theyre the ones who wrote the history books.
Theres one thing you havent considered. I never see it in these discussions.
Lets forget for a moment about fighting tyrrany in our own govt.
The people should retain arms, all arms, including the messiest of them, for
use when the govt ends. Remember that, comrade? Govts end. All of them.
This one is going to end one day. And when it does, if the people have
sufficient arms, they will be able to congregate amongst like folk, and create
territories. But without arms everywhere, when the govt ends, the story is
always the same. This govt will be replaced by a military dictatorship. And
that is why you are a socialist monster. Whether you understand this or not,
you are the single greatest threat to a Free man.
Are you free?
Do you own your body? Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or
medicate yourself? Do you own your labor? Can you work for any wage
you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat?
Do you own your possessions? Can the terms of your property ownership
be changed at any time, or for any reason? Can your property be taxed
without limitation?
Can you travel freely? Must you carry identification papers for you and your
property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse?
There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints. One point is slavery, and
at the other end: FREEDOM.
Bob Tiernan
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, Neal Feldman wrote:
[concerning defending oneself]
> However nowhere is it written that you may do so
> with anything you may desire. You may not do so
> with a lightsabre....for regardless of your desire
> such has not been invented yet. You may not do so
> with nuclear weapons, nor with chemical or biological
> weapons.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights need not be a "living"
document for it to protect rights regardless of what may
be invented in the future. That's the flexibility in the
document. Besides, if we the people cannot have things that
were not invented by 1789, what gives the government the
authority to acquire them as well?
> > We do not have a caste system with some sort of second-class status.
>
> Actually while unfortunate we do have such a system... ask any legal
> alien or homosexual if they enjoy the same rights and equal treatment
> that anyone else takes for granted.
Or ask a gun-owner. In any case, private discrimination should be
allowed, tho' state discrimination and privileges are what are to
be considered unconstitutional.
> > | Does it then mean all U.S. citizens? It might, except for the
> > | fact that the founding fathers felt it was also synonimous with
> > | those citizens enrolled in well regulated militias (UMA1792).
> > Which were made up of all able bodies between certain ages.
> The militia is that... however it makes mention of a WELL REGULATED
> (read: organized) militia.
Neal, you need to look into what words meant back then. "Regulated",
as in this case, meant trained to shoot straight, among other things,
and had nothing at all to do with the word "regulation" as is now
commonly understood. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not give the
government the power to "regulate" militias, or militiamen, or their
arms. Indeed, the governmemt is not even required that we have militias
if we don't want them. But that's another story. The point is that
all men between the ages of 18 amd 45 (I think) were considered to be
the militia, if we want to do anything about it. Our guns are at
home with us (if we want any), and not at a government armory.
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Neal Feldman wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > That's right, Neal. You have something against
> > "trailer trash", or southern accents?
> No... do you? I called no one trailer trash... and why would I have
> something against people with southern accents? I consider southern
> accents of the gentility to be quite civilized (and in cases of females,
> quite sexy). Also I learned to speak when my family lived in Alabama and
> so when I get tired I slip into one of the deepest drawls you might ever
> hear this far north...
Well, now that we know that you are trailer trash yourself......
Bob T.
Robert...@teleport.com
> Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> writes:
> Robert...@teleport.com wrote:
[snip]
> > You must be an aspiring politician: An indulger in the pretence of being
> > for that which you're publically against.
> Oh? How so? Come on... you are making the claims. Let's see if you can
> back up any of it. I seriously doubt it because I know you appear to
> live in a delusionary fog.
Ah, Neal, you append that silly sig of yours, yet manifest the very attitudes
which allow fascism to flourish. 'Tis you, sweet-cakes, who are living in a
"delusionary fog", this is, if you're actually sincere.
> > Bet you voted for Swilly...twice.
> I voted for no one named Swilly. Who is he? Your candidate of choice?
Your disingenuousness isn't even vaguely amusing. "Arguing" with you is
like squeezing a sack of shit. Somebody else can do it. Bye.
> "Fight Fascism!"
> "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
BTW "reich" translates to "kingdom"....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, guer...@hevanet.com (Guerilla) says:
>Youre ignorant of history. The founders wanted the people to have the arms.
>They would only be called upon to use or present them voluntarily during times
>of war.
The "founders" only intended the 2nd amendment (and the rest of the
BoR) to be applicable to the federal gubmint in any event.
No one would have disputed the right of the state and local gubmints
to regulate firearms as they and their citizens might have wished.
Whether or not the feds can "ban" assault weapons (which the feds have
not done - they have merely forbidden the manufacture or importation of
assault weapons), few, if any, of the founding fathers would have questioned
the right of the State of New York to ban assault weapons if its citizens
so desired.
Peace and justice,
--
Bill Shatzer - bsha...@orednet.org
Clayton E. Cramer
Albert Isham wrote:
>
> In article <5sa306$ai5$5...@glisan.hevanet.com>, Guerilla says...
> >Yes, thats right, AI.
>
> So you want to tie your own hands to regulate firearms?
Nope. "Gun control" refers not to reasonable regulation, but
the attempt to disarm the law-abiding -- as HCI's second chairman
openly stated in 1976.
> I have no intention of disarming anyone except criminals. Any thought to the
> contrary came from gun lobby propaganda. You have been lied to.
So all the gun control laws that actually disarm law-abiding adults
don't exist? Like California's Assault Weapons Control Act? Like
the Sullivan Law in New York? Like Washington DC's ban on new gun
sales? THOSE are gun control.
> I have observed that name-calling is a debate tactic often used by the gun
> lobby. It adds no facts or insights but is useful to divert attention from
> the paucity of valid arguments by the gun lobby. Your unprovoked hostility
> towards me shows that you have been indoctrinated with the false stereotype
> of the opponent of the gun lobby. You have been brainwashed with hate and
> fear.
The gun control lobby has repeatedly evidenced its desire to disarm
law-abiding adults. Do you deny it? Do you deny the laws that they
pass?
Robert...@teleport.com
> zur...@midas.engr.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
> Robert said:
> >There's a Latin phrase that covers such "arguments": reductio ad absurdum.
> >In other words, when someone lacks a cogent argument, they hyper-inflate
> Hmmmmm....much like you and your ideological fellows on this group.
>>>>
If that's the best you can do...without offering one example to rebut, you're
in deep philosophical doo-doo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. D. Bridges
In article <33E8DE...@dlcc.com>, cra...@nospamdlcc.com wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
> > Actually, allowing the Government to outlaw or ban ANY weapon is
> > unacceptable. There really isn't any more risk to our society without
> > such a ban on "weapons of mass destruction". Take Japan for example.
> > One would be hard pressed to argue that any country has a more tightly
> > controlled arms availability, yet the Anritsu Cult obtained and made
> > "Chemical Warfare" agents. In otherwords, the law made NO difference
> > and only allows the precedent of government entry into a protected civil
> > rights area.
>
> So tell me, do you have any problem with 7-11 starting to tell nerve gas
> in 20 gallon containers for $2? I can see some problems that might
> result from this -- can you?
>
> What self-defense use will you have for nerve gas?
I don't think we're arguing the problems with the scenario you mention.
We're arguing whether or not the second amendment restricts such things.
On its face, it does not. Should we amend it to restrict such things?
Probably. Should we just restrict them anyway by "reading into" the
constitution or "interpreting" the second amendment to rationalize our
restrictions? Absolutely not.
> > There are other methods to make these agents unavailable,
restricting
> > arms availability is NOT the way to do it.
>
> Such as? Right now, I can go out and buy all the components at any
> Wal-Mart to make enough poison gas to kill hundreds of people (in a
> confined space like an office building) for about $100. Fortunately,
> this knowledge is limited to probably 1-2% of the population, and
> nearly all are sufficiently rational and moral that we wouldn't do
> such a thing. But if you sold canisters marked, "Mass Murder Gas"
> for $100, so that the other 98% of the population could buy it over
> the counter, I am sure that it would be used: for extortion, for
> mass murder ala Patrick Purdy, or just for the entertainment of
> watching people die.
>
> And unlike a gun, such a weapon can't be used defensively.
McVeigh didn't seem like such a rocket scientist, yet he managed to wipe
out most of a city block and kill hundreds using common materials.
And though you may be right about only 1-2% of folks having knowledge of
such things, recipes to make the stuff (i.e.: explosives or poison/nerve
gas) are readily available and capable of being followed by the majority
of people out there. Why don't we see this stuff being cooked up and
deployed more often?
R. D. Bridges
In article <5saum0$h86$5...@nw001.infi.net>, ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert
Isham) wrote:
[snip]
> In 1861, several southern states decided to remove their units from federal
> control. We had a war. The states rights people lost.
So, losing to superior military force makes the aggressor right?
[snip]
> It protects the state militias from being disarmed by the federal governmant.
The second amendment ennumerates an individual right, not a state power.
You're wrong.
[snip]
> That seems to be the assertion of many gun lobby people. No it is not a
> strawman. Many gun lobby supporters rail against any regulation of firearms.
Then take that up with them. I haven't seen any posts here advocating
that the second amendment protects criminal assaults with weapons.
R. D. Bridges
In article <33E94B...@cyberis.net>, Neal Feldman
<than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
> no one of consequence wrote:
> >
> > ]> > The law that was passed banning private ownership of nuclear weapons.
> > ]> I know the law was passed... my question is when was that passed law
> > ]> blasted out of existance by a USSC ruling that it was unconstititonal?
> >
> > You misunderstand.
>
> I do not think so...
>
> > I know of no law that bans private ownership of nuclear weapons.
>
> So you contend that it is legal for you to own a nuke... is that your
> statement? I suggest you do a little research on the subject. There
> have been cases of students or others creating small ones, only to have
> them seized instantly upon govt knowing about them... Weapons grade
> isotopes are controlled substances for all intents and purposes and you
> have to have an absolutely airtight reason not related to weapons for
> possessing them.
Just because the government seized them does not necessarily mean any law
was broken. I'd be interested in learning what particular law bans
private possession of nukes, too, just as a matter of interest.
> > I am asking YOU to back up your claim that they are banned by stating the
> > law in question.
>
> I do not know the specific criminal code but I do know it is illegal.
> Just as I know it is illegal for any random person to own a fully
> functional machine gun.
It's not illegal. It's just heavily regulated. You can get a license to
own a fully automatic rifle.
R. D. Bridges
In article <clw-0508...@ip-pdx14-04.telCANCELLED>, c...@teleport.com
() wrote:
> In article <01bca1b0$c18a17a0$75b0...@jefferson.ftlsystems>, "Robert N.
> Newshutz" <news...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote in article
> > <5s48su$6lh$1...@nw001.infi.net>...
> > > In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.970803...@kelly.teleport.com>,
> > Bob
> > > Tiernan says...
> > > >
> > > >On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Neal Feldman wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> > The founders wanted the people to have the arms.
>
> Only insofar as they were members of a "well regulated militia" so that (in
> the absence of a standing army) we could maintain "the security of a free
> state".
The amendment does not make bearing arms contingent on militia service.
> This is a lot different from drive by shootings, highway rage ending in
> shootings, murder as an initiation rite in some gangs etc.
You're comparing criminal uses of weapons to law-abiding people possessing
weapons. All the things you list are already illegal, and
constitutionally so. The second amendment only protects the right to bear
arms, not the practice of going around assaulting folks.
Rick Bowen
On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 00:38:59 -0700, Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net>
wrote:
>Lone_Wolf wrote:
>>
>> #Not to the tune of several thousands of rounds per minute. Even the
>> #Gatling gun was not known to them.
>>
>> Designs existed for automatic weapons. Heck, going by projectile count,
>> a cannon loaded with grape-shot puts a LOT of rounds down range in one shot.
>
>Are you that illogically desperate? I guess to you a shotgun is a
>machine gun... If you do not comprehend what I mean when I speak of
>rounds per minute then there is little benefit in having you display
>your ignorance of the topic.
Ever see a Remington 1100 "go off"? I was there. A buddy and myself were
doing some rabbit hunting on his land, he sees a gar (fish) in the
creek. He levels the shotgun, pulls the trigger, and Whamo! five shells
were floating in the creek. (IOW, 1 pull of the trigger) Of course, he
doesn't believe it. He loads it up again. Pulls the trigger, and same
thing happens. He liked to wet himself. We quit hunting and took the gun
back to his house. Turns out a pin inside had backed loose from it's
socket, allowing the gun to go full auto. Those five rounds went before
he could get his finger off of the trigger. So yeah, shotguns CAN be
machine guns.
Rick
______________________
TSRA & NRA Life Member
Dick Winningstad
Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote in article
<5sau3k$h86$4...@nw001.infi.net>...
> In article <01bca2a9$909221c0$467ca3ce@default>, Dick Winningstad
says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote in article
> ><5s9imt$onr$1...@nw001.infi.net>...
> >> In article <33E776...@surf.com>, Pat says...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >The Bill of Rights was set up, in part, as one way to prevent a tyranny
of
> >the majority. So yes I would be willing to tell the people they can not
> >regulate firearms ownership. Just as I would be willing to tell the
people
> >they can not tell me I have to be a Christian, Muslim, etc.
>
> So, you are of the "tyranny" school.
>
> Tell me. Is the taking up of arms against tyranny a right to be enforced
by
> the courts?
>
Read your history Mr. Isham. The Anti-Federalists were concerned a central
government would grow into a tyranny as it would be able to exercise
control over the whole nation and would also be remote from local control.
Therefore, as a condition to approving the Constitution, several states
ratified on the condition a Bill of Rights would be amended to the
document. James Madison, an ardent Federalist at the time, agreed to do
that. In the first session of Congress through Madison's leadership, a Bill
of Rights was added to the constitution.
Now if the central government does turn into a tyranny, do you think the
courts will support the government, or the people? Also if the courts
support the people, how will the courts enforce their rulings?
Albert Isham
In article <5scio4$i1s$1...@glisan.hevanet.com>, Guerilla says...
>
>In article <5satpp$h86$3...@nw001.infi.net>,
> ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
>
>|I have observed that name-calling is a debate tactic often used by the gun
>|lobby. It adds no facts or insights but is useful to divert attention from
>|the paucity of valid arguments by the gun lobby. Your unprovoked hostility
>|towards me shows that you have been indoctrinated with the false stereotype
>|of the opponent of the gun lobby. You have been brainwashed with hate and
>|fear.
>
>
>Theres one thing you havent considered. I never see it in these
discussions.
>Lets forget for a moment about fighting tyrrany in our own govt.
>
>The people should retain arms, all arms, including the messiest of them, for
>use when the govt ends. Remember that, comrade? Govts end. All of
have never considered the keeping of arms to fight the alleged tyranny of our
own government? This argument is presented frequently by the gun lobby.
them.
>This one is going to end one day. And when it does, if the people have
>sufficient arms, they will be able to congregate amongst like folk, and
create
>territories. But without arms everywhere, when the govt ends, the story is
>always the same. This govt will be replaced by a military dictatorship.
And will that military dictatorship be led by the gun lobby?
And
>that is why you are a socialist monster. Whether you understand this or
not,
>you are the single greatest threat to a Free man.
Since I support the rule of law and the people free to regulate private
firearms, how do you consider me to be a threat to good citizens of this
country? They have more to fear from those who are trying to suppress their
right to regulate private firearms. That group who wants to make private
firearms a sacred cow.
>
>
>Are you free?
What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
>
>Do you own your body? Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or
>medicate yourself? Do you own your labor? Can you work for any wage
>you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat?
How is this related to what the framers thought?
>
>Do you own your possessions? Can the terms of your property ownership
>be changed at any time, or for any reason? Can your property be taxed
>without limitation?
This has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.
>
>Can you travel freely? Must you carry identification papers for you and
your
>property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse?
Must you allow a special interest group to take away your right to regulate
private firearms?
>
>There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints. One point is slavery, and
>at the other end: FREEDOM.
>
>
What's your point?
Neal Feldman
Scout wrote:
>
> In article <33E81C...@cyberis.net>, than...@cyberis.net says...
> >
> >Form of printing is irrelevant... the words produced are no deadlier
> >whatever produces them.
>
> Agreed, the words produced can and do remain deadly, since they can contain
> ideas, slogan, thoughts, information, ect that can lead to riots, murder, war,
> even revolution. One of the more common phrases leading to revolution was
> "Give me Liberty or Give me Death." Widely published and helped lead to
> hundreds, thousands of deaths. Words, like this can be dangerous.
And lo and behold... they had no computer set type back then... did
they? Hmmmmm... seems you are supporting my argument.
> > Are you going to try and claim that a nuke or a
> >Super Germ is no more dangerous or deadly than a flintlock muzzle
> >loader?
>
> I would. To the person killed by any of these, they are just as dead. Doesn't
> matter in the least to the corpse if they're only Slightly Dead, or REALLY
> REALLY VERY DEAD. They are D E A D.
Are you always this dense? It is not how dead an individual is... it is
how dead the 100,000 people around them are in addition. Get a clue,
idiot. Or at least learn to comprehend the english language.
> > Hmmmm? Try coming up with something relevant and logical next
> >time, OK?
>
> You certainly should.
I always do. Your factless and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary
disprove nothing.
J.A. James
In article <5sd2en$4c4$2...@nw003.infi.net>, ais...@ne.infi.net says...
> U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)
>
> Hale was convicted of possessing a machine gun. He challenged his
> conviction, arguing that individual possession of "true military weapons" is
> protected under the Second Amendment. The Court did not agree, commenting
> that "The Second Amendment prevented federal laws that would infringe upon
> the possession of arms by individuals and thus render the state militias
> impotent. Over the next 200 years, state militias first faded out of
> existence and then later reemerged as more organized, semi-professional
> military units. . . .With the passage of the Dick Act in 1903, the state
> militias were organized into the national guard structure, which remains in
> place today. . . . Considering this history, we cannot conclude that the
> Second Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons."
> (p.1019)
Was Hale able to afford to persue the appeals through the
SCOTUS? If not, the ruling of the 8th can hardly be considered the
final word on anything at all.
--
J.A. James
Fianna Consultation
All pertinent sections of 17 U.S.Code applicable.
R. D. Bridges
In article <33E81C...@cyberis.net>, Neal Feldman
<than...@cyberis.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Form of printing is irrelevant... the words produced are no deadlier
> whatever produces them. Are you going to try and claim that a nuke or a
> Super Germ is no more dangerous or deadly than a flintlock muzzle
> loader? Hmmmm? Try coming up with something relevant and logical next
> time, OK?
It's extremely relevant. Just as modern printing technology can deliver
printed words on an extremely large scale, so can modern weapons harm
their targets on an extremely large scale.
He wasn't comparing a flintlock rifle to a biological weapon. He was
comparing the advancement of technology in both printing and arms.
R. D. Bridges
In article <5s9imt$onr$1...@nw001.infi.net>, ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert
Isham) wrote:
> In article <33E776...@surf.com>, Pat says...
> >
>
> > Actually, allowing the Government to outlaw or ban ANY weapon is
> >unacceptable.
>
> But since we are the government, you are telling we the people that we cannot
> regulate the most lethal instruments among us.
The government is drawn from the people, but individual people are not the
government. If you're the government, pass a couple of laws or something.
Stephanie Spanhel
Hey now! There's nothing wrong with southern accents!
Steph, apparently accentless recovering Texan, who is known
to slip back in ...
--
If you ask me, they should'a stopped with
"Congress shall make no law." sspa...@efn.org
GaryLDye
In article <33EA09...@cyberis.net>, Neal Feldman
<than...@cyberis.net> writes:
>I assume you have heard nothing of the Night of Long Knives. Yes,
>Hitler used the oppressed homosexual community to rise to power, but
>once he had secured power he jettisoned them and attempted to eradicate
>them.
Much like the collectivists used the Founding Fathers to gain power, and
then jettisoned them.
G Lyndon
And on the eighth day, Man created God in his own image, and called it "Government".
Robert...@teleport.com
> Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> writes:
[deletions]
> Oh you gotta love the raw offensive sewage that Guerilla spews...
> Socialism? What socialism? A pity you were apparently never
> socialized. (I wonder if you know the difference).
> ROTFLU! You have no clue.
> .....a nutcase armed with weapons of mass death and destruction is one
> of my worst nightmares... as it would be for any sentient and sane person.
> I can, apparently, leave you out of that group.
>>>>
And all of the king's horses and all of the king's men and all of the laws,
codes, regulations, treaties, and rules that a thousand statists sitting at
a thousand typewriters could dream up won't stop one determined individual
with a portable nuclear or biological device from setting it off....maybe even
in your own general neighborhood. So why do you keep harping on some-
thing that neither you nor Big Uncle can really control, other than the inability
to realize that your strawman has no brain?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Winningstad
Neal Feldman <than...@cyberis.net> wrote in article
<33EA06...@cyberis.net>...
> Scout wrote:
> >
> > In article <33E81C...@cyberis.net>, than...@cyberis.net says...
> > >
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip stuff about print rights>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > Are you going to try and claim that a nuke or a
> > >Super Germ is no more dangerous or deadly than a flintlock muzzle
> > >loader?
> >
> > I would. To the person killed by any of these, they are just as dead.
Doesn't
> > matter in the least to the corpse if they're only Slightly Dead, or
REALLY
> > REALLY VERY DEAD. They are D E A D.
>
> Are you always this dense? It is not how dead an individual is... it is
> how dead the 100,000 people around them are in addition. Get a clue,
> idiot. Or at least learn to comprehend the english language.
>
Get off this nuke stuff. The Second Amendment term arms refers to hand held
weapons only. Not nukes, not biological weapons, not cannons etc.
George of the Jungle
In article <MPG.e53d8502...@news.oz.net>, j...@NOSPAMoz.net says...
>
>In article <5sd2en$4c4$2...@nw003.infi.net>, ais...@ne.infi.net says...
>
>> U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)
>>
>> Hale was convicted of possessing a machine gun. He challenged his
[Albert's shameless use of Henigan's material w/o attributation deleted]
> Was Hale able to afford to persue the appeals through the
>SCOTUS? If not, the ruling of the 8th can hardly be considered the
>final word on anything at all.
It is a lower court decision that was not reviewed by the Supreme Court, who
either denied cert. on appeal, or were not presented with is (I don't
remembeer exactly which it was). As you say, it is binding only in the federal
district where it was heard, not nation-wide. Although, it may (and has been)
been used in other federal gun control cases as a precedent.
Albert likes to confuse the issue by spouting quotes from articles by Dennis
Henigan, chief mouthpiece of organized gun control. Albert does not have the
talent to do his own research, so he repeats this passage (and some others),
over and over, and over again. The only thing is, they were written by someone
else, and come with a built in anti-gun owner bias!
>--
>J.A. James
>Fianna Consultation
>All pertinent sections of 17 U.S.Code applicable.
--
Please do not send email.
Support the anti-Spam amendment
Join at http://www.cauce.org/
"Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to
me as the result of an unsolicited email message. Nor will I
forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus
warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to
the survival of the online community."
"The Boulder Pledge", devised by Roger Ebert at the
Conference on World Affairs at the University of
Colorado
http://people.clarkson.edu/~pritchea/pledge.html
George of the Jungle
>>
>
>>>>Ok, Isham, once more. Maybe you will answer this time...
>>>>
>>>>What part of "right of the people" don't you understand?
>>>
>>>The underlying principle of the Constitution is that the people have the
>>>power to make the laws necessary to govern themselves. The Second
>Amendment
>>>was included in the BoR because of the founders fear of standing armies and
>>>their desire to shield the military power of the states from encroachment
>by
>>>the central government. It granted no special right for private
>individuals
>>>to have guns shielded from all laws like sacred cows.
>>
>>*sigh*
>>
>>"It granted no special right for private individuals to have guns..."
>>
>>First off, the Constitution didn't *grant* an damned thing; it *recognised*
>pre-existing rights.
>
>There is no right, pre-existing or otherwise, for private firearms to be
>treated as sacred cows for which the people are powerless to regulate.
>
Sorry, you are wrong.
Quote:
. . . The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation
on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: "[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." This Court has
not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right
safeguarded by the Second Amendment. [n.1] If, however, the Second Amendment is
read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument
exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains
to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that
Amendment's protections. [n.2] As the parties did not raise this argument,
however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this
Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct
when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the
palladium of the liberties of a republic." 3 J. Story, Commentaries ยง1890, p.
746 (1833). In the meantime, I join the Court's opinion striking down the
challenged provisions of the Brady Act as inconsistent with the Tenth
Amendment.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
...
2 Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of
scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as
the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right. See, e.g., J. Malcolm, To Keep
and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo American Right 162 (1994); S. Halbrook,
That Every Man Be Armed, The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (1984); Van
Alstyne, The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms, 43 Duke L. J.
1236 (1994); Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale L.
J. 1193 (1992); Cottrol & Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro
Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L. J. 309 (1991); Levinson, The
Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 637 (1989); Kates, Handgun
Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev.
204 (1983). Other scholars, however, argue that the Second Amendment does not
secure a personal right to keep or to bear arms. See, e.g., Bogus, Race, Riots,
and Guns, 66 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1365 (1993); Williams, Civic Republicanism and
the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment, 101 Yale L. J. 551
(1991); Brown, Guns, Cowboys, Philadelphia Mayors, and Civic Republicanism: On
Sanford Levinson's The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 661 (1989);
Cress, An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms,
71 J. Am. Hist. 22 (1984). Although somewhat overlooked in our jurisprudence,
the Amendment hascertainly engendered considerable academic, as well as public,
debate.
Justice Thomas, concurring.
JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v.
UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503
Endquote
.
>>
>
>William, you need to study more court decisions on this subject. Dozens of
>federal judges disagree with you.
Except, perhaps, for particular federal judge:
"Justice Thomas, concurring.
JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v.
UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503"
>
>U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)
[Commentary of Dennis Henigan, big-shot lawyer of gun control, that Albert
likes to shamelessly plagerize w/o attributation, deleted]
One Supreme Court Justice trumps any number of shyster lawyers working for HCI
- and HCI trolls like you.
====================================================================
"The Brady law has been in effect for three years now.
In that time, the Federal government has prosecuted
seven people, and convicted three of them. The President
has entertained more felons than that at Whitehouse
fundraisers, for Pete's sake."
- Charlton Heston, on Meet The Press, 5/18/97
====================================================================
Neal Feldman
Stephanie Spanhel wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Aug 1997, Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Neal Feldman wrote:
> >
> > > Bob Tiernan wrote:
> >
> > > > That's right, Neal. You have something against
> > > > "trailer trash", or southern accents?
> >
> > > No... do you? I called no one trailer trash... and why would I have
> > > something against people with southern accents? I consider southern
> > > accents of the gentility to be quite civilized (and in cases of females,
> > > quite sexy). Also I learned to speak when my family lived in Alabama and
> > > so when I get tired I slip into one of the deepest drawls you might ever
> > > hear this far north...
> >
> >
> > Well, now that we know that you are trailer trash yourself......
Huh? When have I ever lived in a trailer park? And considering you
accused me of being 'racist' for calling nonexistant people trailer
trash when I in fact did no such thing I find it amusingly hypocritical
(and right on SOP for you, Bob) for you to act in such a 'racist' manner
in direct (and, as usual, factless) manner to me.
You are truly an offensive individual... no wonder you do not like
groups... few would have you which are not as offensive as you are.
> Hey now! There's nothing wrong with southern accents!
You see, Steph... Bob Tiernan has proven himself to not only be a
hypocrite, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and incredibly factless and
lacking in anything remotely resembling rational thought or logic, but
also he has shown himself to be totally inconsistent in all things other
than those irksome qualities I just listed. He does not care what he
says just so long as it is offensive, insulting, immature or some
combination of the three. He proves this with every post he makes.
Neal Feldman
Dick Winningstad wrote:
>
> > Are you always this dense? It is not how dead an individual is... it is
> > how dead the 100,000 people around them are in addition. Get a clue,
> > idiot. Or at least learn to comprehend the english language.
> >
> Get off this nuke stuff. The Second Amendment term arms refers to hand held
> weapons only. Not nukes, not biological weapons, not cannons etc.
While I agree with you there are still a number of irrational nutcases
posting a contrary position to this conference. Haven't you noticed
them?
Neal Feldman
Robert...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> > > You must be an aspiring politician: An indulger in the pretence of being
> > > for that which you're publically against.
>
> > Oh? How so? Come on... you are making the claims. Let's see if you can
> > back up any of it. I seriously doubt it because I know you appear to
> > live in a delusionary fog.
>
> Ah, Neal, you append that silly sig of yours,
Nothing silly about it. The religious reich in this country is making
an all-out attempt to rewrite history and turn this nation of freedom
into a freedomless totalitarian intolerantly bigotted theocratic state.
> yet manifest the very attitudes which allow fascism to flourish.
Oh really now? Again you prove yourself to be long on accusations, and
nonexistent on specific facts to back those accusations up. But then
again from what I have seen of your ilk what else is new?
> 'Tis you, sweet-cakes, who are living in a
> "delusionary fog", this is, if you're actually sincere.
Again... you make the accusations without a shred of supporting
evidence... with only the attitude that if you say it then it must be
true. Like I said... you prove yourself to be in a delusionary fog with
each successive post you make.
> > > Bet you voted for Swilly...twice.
>
> > I voted for no one named Swilly. Who is he? Your candidate of choice?
>
> Your disingenuousness isn't even vaguely amusing. "Arguing" with you is
> like squeezing a sack of shit. Somebody else can do it. Bye.
>
> > "Fight Fascism!"
> > "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
>
> BTW "reich" translates to "kingdom"....
Which might be a relevant point if I were using the word in that
manner. Oh well... I guess you will have to get another clue.
Neal Feldman
Sorry... the newsreader sent before I wanted it to... not sure why.
Robert...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> > > Bet you voted for Swilly...twice.
>
> > I voted for no one named Swilly. Who is he? Your candidate of choice?
>
> Your disingenuousness isn't even vaguely amusing.
No disingenuousness. I voted for no one named Swilly. This is a true
fact. If you are misstating a name then the fault lies with you if
there is a clarity problem. If you would kindly be mature enough to use
the candidate's proper name to whom you refer then maybe I can answer
the challenge. But if you insist on making up psuedonyms for people you
will need to excuse me if I do not follow your lead. Grow up, will you?
> "Arguing" with you is like squeezing a sack of shit.
ROTFLU! I am the one being honest and mature... pity I cannot say the
same for you.
Neal Feldman
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> > Actually while unfortunate we do have such a system... ask any legal
> > alien or homosexual if they enjoy the same rights and equal treatment
> > that anyone else takes for granted.
>
> Or ask a gun-owner.
I think you miss something... if they are a gun owner then they own a
gun... so how has their right to own a gun been denied? Hmmmm?
> In any case, private discrimination should be allowed,
Why not private slavery? Oh... it violates peoples' rights? Well, so
does private discrimination. Get a clue. Whether you are discriminated
against by the govt or a private company, you are still discriminated
against.
> tho' state discrimination and privileges are what are to
> be considered unconstitutional.
So you feel that the government should issue marriage licenses to same
sex couples? To continue to not do so is government discrimination
against those citizens.
> > > Which were made up of all able bodies between certain ages.
>
> > The militia is that... however it makes mention of a WELL REGULATED
> > (read: organized) militia.
>
> Neal, you need to look into what words meant back then.
I have. The definition currently used was also used back then.
> "Regulated",
> as in this case, meant trained to shoot straight, among other things,
> and had nothing at all to do with the word "regulation" as is now
> commonly understood.
Sorry but that was only ONE definition at the time. Please present your
proofs that this specific definition you claim was the ONLY one to be
used in this case, in the words of the framers... if you would be so
kind.
> The point is that
> all men between the ages of 18 amd 45 (I think) were considered to be
> the militia, if we want to do anything about it.
They are the 'militia'... they are not a 'WELL REGULATED militia'. Deal
with it.
GaryLDye
In article <33EAC7...@cyberis.net>, Neal Feldman
<than...@cyberis.net> writes:
>Sorry to disillusion you but most letters of marque were issued to
>PIRATES... they figured that since they could not get rid of pirates
>they could at least negotiate with them so that the pirates only went
>after their enemies.
>
>And when was the last letter of marque issued by congress, eh? Hmmm?
>
>
I think it had something to do with the founding of the IRS.
Neal Feldman
Don Homuth wrote:
>
> Let me contribute but two:
>
> 1. A law outlawing the wearing of blue shirts.
> 2. A law outlawing the consumption of sausage and eggs for breakfast.
>
> You should recognize both of these hypothetical oppressions in recent
> weeks. We could probably dig out some more.
I eat sausage and eggs for breakfast on occassion and also wear a blue
shirt from time to time. Please cite the legal statute that makes these
activities a crime... if you would be so kind.
talltom
Dick Winningstad wrote:
> For this debate, I would suggest limiting the types of arms discussed to
> handguns, rifles, full automatic assault rifles, and grenade launchers. But
> draw the line at crew served machine guns, and cannon/howitzers, missiles,
> etc.
Why?? There is little reason to make a distinction between "arms for people"
and "arms" when there is no such distinction in the document. Further, there
are several examples of the use of the term "arms" of that period that prove
that the distinction is falacious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This quotation was written by Alexander Tyler over 220 years ago,
when the American states were still British colonies.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves
largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
always votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the public
treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose
fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been two
hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
>From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependence back again to bondage."
Albert Isham
In article <5se8vn$l...@news.mc.net>, George of the Jungle says...
>
>Albert likes to confuse the issue by spouting quotes from articles by Dennis
>Henigan, chief mouthpiece of organized gun control. Albert does not have
the
>talent to do his own research, so he repeats this passage (and some others),
>over and over, and over again. The only thing is, they were written by
someone
>else, and come with a built in anti-gun owner bias!
>
of your own to cite. You and the rest of the gun lobby seem to have a talent
for taking quotations out of context and twisting them to agree with your
agenda. You are misleading the American people and yourselves.
The NRA has never overturned a gun control law in federal court on the basis
of the Second Amendment.
They have abandoned use of the Second Amendment in court and now use it only
for propaganda.
Albert Isham
In article <33EA2E...@dlcc.com>, Clayton E. Cramer says...
>
>Albert Isham wrote:
>> So, you are of the "tyranny" school.
>>
>> Tell me. Is the taking up of arms against tyranny a right to be enforced
by
>> the courts?
>
>is a right to be enforced by the courts -- in the same way
>that possession of a printing press so that you can insult
>the government is a right to be enforced by the courts.
OK.
By what standards are the courts to determine whether the government has
become sufficiently tyrannical so that armed insurrection becomes
constitutionally protected?
talltom
Albert Isham wrote:
>
> In article <5sa3a9$njt$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, Scout says...
> >
> >>to have guns shielded from all laws like sacred cows.
> >
> >Sorry, but I not aware that anyone has or claims that guns are shielded from
> >all laws, certainly the criminal misuse isn't nor would it ever be. This is
> >simply a straw man.
>
> That seems to be the assertion of many gun lobby people. No it is not a
> strawman.
Yes it is.
Many gun lobby supporters rail against any regulation of firearms.
And rightfully they should. There is considerable difference between
laws concerning the criminal misuse of "arms" and the regulation of
"arms." While there's no problem with laws as to the misuse or abuse, to
imply that that's an excuse to "regulate" the arms is why the second
ammendment exists. Seems the FF's Had this type of nonsense figured out
a couple of hundred years ago.
--
talltom
Subject:
Re: " what 'framers' thought or felt" re: 2nd is Relevant"!
Date:
Fri, 08 Aug 1997 02:37:28 -0700
From:
talltom <"talltom(SPAMBLOCKER)"@ipns.com>
Organization:
IMPECCABLE
Newsgroups:
or.politics, poster, alt.politics.usa.constitution, talk.politics.guns
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13
Neal Feldman wrote:
>
> Scout wrote:
> >
> > In article <33E94B...@cyberis.net>, than...@cyberis.net says...
> > >
> > >I am willing to stand corrected that someone may have had a plan or a
> > >concept for a rapid fire (by the contemporary standards) firearm
> > >pre-1800... I however made the statement that the FRAMERS of the
> > >constitution did not know of such a device existing.
> >
> > BULLSHIT! Congress in 1785 paid to have 100 rifles CONVERTED to that system,
> > which existed, and use in USE! Are you telling me all the Framers of the
> > Constitution and BoR were DEAD by 1785?
>
> No... and again I am willing to stand corrected... but I challenge you
> to show that the framers had even a concept of a gun capable of firing
> 6000 rounds per minute... or the destructive power of a nuke... or the
> sheer indisious deadliness of biological weapons of mass destruction,
> etc. This is the core of my point which you and others are dodging and
> dancing around by arguing niggling little irrelevant points.
No, we aren't dancing around it, we're just ignoring it because it's irrelevant.
What the ff's knew of at the time makes no difference to what the const. says
and the functions of govt. that are agreed to.
If you don't like that you're free to cal a const. convention, but until that's
done and it's changed that's the way it is.
> > > And people have
> > >theories today of cold fusion... but does anyone actually have cold
> > >fusion working?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Oh really? Where is this? One group claimed to have done so... yet not
> a single other scientific group could duplicate their results. As far as
> I am aware it is still just theory... because it would be front page
> news if they had perfected it.
>
> > > Also I spoke specifically about ROFs of thousands of
> > >rounds per minute... like the Minigun...
> >
> > (1800's technology. )
>
> Oh really? 1890s? Sorry but I do not see it.
>
> > > I seriously doubt that the
> > >primitive ideas of machine guns back then had rates of fire even a
> > >fraction of that.
So what?
> > You lose. Since machine guns existed, and given any rate of fire would
> > therefore have at least a fraction of that rate.
>
> You keep on niggling even though you know what I meant... I believe the
> term is intellectual dishonesty on your part. Fine... I will play your
> little games if you really insist on being that immature... a
> SIGNIFICANT FRACTION of those rates. There. Happy now? Geez... some
> people when they have no logical or factual leg to stand on will resort
> to the most annoying, irritating and immature tactics... sheesh!
Significant fractions or otherwise, that ain't the way it is, so there's no
point in going on about it.
> > >But if you think those followups disproved anything substantial to my
> > >argument or in any way supported your idiotic concept that the second
> > >amendment protects an individual right to own nukes, nerve gas, and the
> > >like, you are even more deluded than I already know you to be.
> >
> > It allows arms, without limitation.
>
> No USSC ruling has held this.
That doesn't mean he's wrong, only that that point hasn't been successfully argued
in the SC. And considering how obvious it is that the 2nd does indeed certify the
continuation of an unlimited right to bear arms, it's hardly amazing that it wouldn't
have been argued.
If you disagree please cite the ruling and
> the relevant text... if you would be so kind.
Well the actual ammendment sez otherwise, so the burden of proof falls to you to
change what is, not to others to prove you wrong.
Laws exist limiting the
> second and disallowing privately owned nukes... those laws and policies
> have not been successfully ruled unconstitutional by the USSC. Get a
> clue.
Many people here are providing you, free of charge, many clues.
> > However, as it stands today, that is what it states.
>
> Sorry but your opinion has no case law supporting it, and volumes of
> case law opposing it. Get a clue. Get a nuke and let the govt know you
> have it... see how long you retain possession.
>
> > Are not nukes refered to as "stratagic arms' by the government and the
> > military?
>
> Yup... and I see nothing in the second amendment which says that you
> have a right to bear strategic arms.
Well being as govt. derives any and all powers it gets from the people, if
people don't have the right to beart nuclear arms, the govt. can't have
gotten the right from the people, so it can't have them either. By the fact
that the govt. has ANY arm, that by definition of what our govt. is gives
that same right to the people.
The First amendment gives no
> limits on the freedom of speech... please then, by your infantile and
> ignorant reading of the second amendment above, explain how libel and
> slander and inciting to riot and sedition etc etc etc can be crimes...
> will you do that please? Oh... in reality there can be and are limits?
> Go figure!
It's pretty simple, words are words, actions are actions, just like arms are
arms, and actions are actions. Is that to tough for you?
> > You want a fun chemical weapon avaliable in countless stores across the
> > nation, and that kill several people each year?
> >
> > Bleach mixed with Ammonia.
>
> And if you stockpiled a significant amount of it and the authorities
> were informed you would have a lot of explaining to do to maintain
> possession.
>
> --
> Neal Feldman "Fight Fascism!"
> Salem, Oregon "Defeat the Religious Reich!"
> than...@cyberis.net
Which you'd never in a million years be able to subdue to the point of being
effective, so I'd suggest you might consider behaving in such a way that others
don't get reason to do such things.
xx
xx
Bob Tiernan
On 7 Aug 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> The "founders" only intended the 2nd amendment (and the rest of the
> BoR) to be applicable to the federal gubmint in any event.
>
> No one would have disputed the right of the state and local gubmints
> to regulate firearms as they and their citizens might have wished.
Numerous states copied the Bill of Rights into their own Constitutions,
or even had a better version, such as Oregon. These sections are
apparently not changed before the states enact their draconian laws.
> Whether or not the feds can "ban" assault weapons (which the feds have
> not done - they have merely forbidden the manufacture or importation of
> assault weapons)
That's like saying that the banning of printing or importing newspapers
and books is not the same as banning them outright. The effect is the
same, and is meant to be the same.
> few, if any, of the founding fathers would have questioned
> the right of the State of New York to ban assault weapons if
> its citizens so desired.
Perhaps, but they wouldn't think of that as progress, or free.
We are talking about free societies, liberty, and all that, while
you just keep holding up the constitutionality of the majority
working towards the opposite goal as if that is better than the
freedoms themselves.
Bob T.
Scout
In article <5serop$hvr$3...@nw003.infi.net>, ais...@ne.infi.net says...
What's up Albert. Time for your next review already?
--
- Scout
.
A well read electorate being necessary to the advancement of
a free society, the right of the people to keep and read
books shall not be infringed.
.
Who has the rights, and in what manner can they be expressed?
Bob Tiernan
On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Neal Feldman wrote:
> And when was the last letter of marque issued by congress, eh? Hmmm?
Doesn't matter. The authority to do so is there.
Bob T.