gun goofballs: still 1776 musket vs musket ;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets they want
;-)
No-bammer
YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
Tommy Shannon
>
> they want
Hell, I say make cross posting maggots who say they are doctors, get
involved in snowball fights in the UK!
Tommy Shannon
> YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
And he knows that, on this Christmas eve!
Mr. Albritton
> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets
> they want
> ;-)
Only if all the 1st amendment *free thinkers* (AKA dumbasses who can read)
abandon all electronic forms of communication and revert back to the quill,
wet ink, and parchment.
You wanna piss and whine? You lead by example.
Morton Davis
"No-bammer" <no-b...@fgi.net> wrote in message
news:D7KdnVhbFbFMca7W...@earthlink.com...
Why do you hate idiots? "Dr. Quin" isn't close to being that intelligent.
edi...@netpath.net
wrote:
> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets they want
Wake up. NO federal court ever said the First Amendment only applied
to technology available in the 1700s; instead, federal appellate
courts have consistently said it applies even to the Internet. So why
should guns - and the Second Amendment - be treated any differently?
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Arved Sandstrom
That's true as far as it goes. There are two points I'd make. For
starters, the First Amendment has never been interpreted to be without
limitations, and it _is_ interpreted in the context of the technology of
the day. That some of the core principles expressed in that amendment
still hold true does not mean that technology has not been taken into
account.
Second, and along these lines, back in the day nobody conceived of your
average militiaman as sporting anything more than a musket or two, and
maybe a brace of pistols if he had a few shekels to throw around. They
weren't thinking of full automatic SMGs or rifles or LMGs, or grenades
as effective and easy to use as they are now, or shoulder-launched AT
weapons. IOW, your single rifleman is now a hell of a lot more lethal,
and maybe, just maybe, the Founding Fathers weren't quite that prescient.
Reasonable people aren't saying that the Second Amendment won't cover a
modern rifle, and most reasonable people will include a modern
semiautomatic assault rifle under that umbrella, but it's not a given -
as many extreme pro-gunners think - that true machine-guns or light
mortars are included.
AHS
SaPeIsMa
"Arved Sandstrom" <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7I4Zm.58940$PH1.25631@edtnps82...
Too bad that your arguments are so UN-reassonable even though to some like
they may sound reasonable
It's aslso indivitavie of your mental dishonesty that you conflate a single
user weapon like a select-fire rigle with a crew operated arm like a mortar
1) Since mortars are NOT considered individual arms in a modern military,
there is NO expectation under the 2nd that it is protected
2) A select-fire arm, and this includes an attachaed greande launcher on
the other hand are fairly standard military issue to troups. Therefore under
the expectation that an individual should knwo how to handle one if called
up, it is protected by the 2nd
Too bad that you have to be dishonest and use fallacious logic to make your
argument
But it's typical of both the overt and covert hoplophobes to do so.
Ray O'Hara
actually the 2nd amendment envisioned the well-regulated male to be armed as
were the soldiers, with the latest weapons avalable.
RD (The Sandman)
> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 5:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>> muskets they want
>>
>> Wake up. NO federal court ever said the First Amendment only applied
>> to technology available in the 1700s; instead, federal appellate
>> courts have consistently said it applies even to the Internet. So
>> why should guns - and the Second Amendment - be treated any
>> differently?
>>
>> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find
>> stuff!
>
> That's true as far as it goes. There are two points I'd make. For
> starters, the First Amendment has never been interpreted to be without
> limitations,
Neither has the Second Amendment. So much for your first point.
and it _is_ interpreted in the context of the technology
> of the day. That some of the core principles expressed in that
> amendment still hold true does not mean that technology has not been
> taken into account.
Also true of the Second Amendment. The principle is the keeping and
bearing of arms, not that it was a musket back in the day. It was to
give civilians the use of the same weaponry as the military had since the
civilians in time of crisis were the military.
> Second, and along these lines, back in the day nobody conceived of
> your average militiaman as sporting anything more than a musket or
> two, and maybe a brace of pistols if he had a few shekels to throw
> around. They weren't thinking of full automatic SMGs or rifles or
> LMGs, or grenades as effective and easy to use as they are now, or
> shoulder-launched AT weapons. IOW, your single rifleman is now a hell
> of a lot more lethal, and maybe, just maybe, the Founding Fathers
> weren't quite that prescient.
Perhaps, but let's look at this definition from 1939 and the US Supreme
Court in US v Miller.
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly
enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for
military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for
service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "
Pay particular attention to that last sentence. I doubt that muskets and
smoothbores are "...of the king in common use at the time." Now, as to
whether or not that applies to full auto weaponry is another point.
Certainly those weapons are in common use in the military and legal
federally as long as certain parameters are met and the gun wasn't
manufactured since 1986.
> Reasonable people aren't saying that the Second Amendment won't cover
> a modern rifle,
Or shotgun or sidearm....(handgun).
and most reasonable people will include a modern
> semiautomatic assault rifle under that umbrella, but it's not a given
> - as many extreme pro-gunners think - that true machine-guns or light
> mortars are included.
True machine guns are included under federal law. States regulate them
but the feds don't ban them from civilians.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
RD (The Sandman)
news:hh2n02$79q$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
That is because in the day the Second Amendment was written, the males
of society were the soldiers.....there was no standing army.
willshak
>
> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
> muskets they want
> ;-)
>
I have a .69 caliber flintstone musket. When I run out of lead balls, I
found it takes a 12 gauge deer slug quite well.
The other long guns I have are much more accurate, lethal, and easier to
use.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
DockScience
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
news:wv2dnTkz0oVod67W...@supernews.com...
>
> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets
> they want
And those free press guys can have all the Franklin single plate presses
they need too.
Idiot.
SaPeIsMa
"DockScience" <DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hYadnScj6ZuoBqjW...@giganews.com...
And don't forget the "free speech" fellas, who can go and stand on any stump
in a public place.
r_c_...@hushmail.com
wrote:
> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets they want
> ;-)
Good for you.
Other people will state "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".
William Black
Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who have
another weapon system lying about somewhere...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
RD (The Sandman)
news:hYadnScj6ZuoBqjW...@giganews.com:
Or use town criers.
RD (The Sandman)
news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>> muskets they want ;-)
>>
>> Good for you.
>>
>> Other people will state "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".
>
> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
Hark.....isn't this response via the internet.....an entity which
couldn't even be concieved of in the 18th century.
> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
> utility in a modern military organisation,
Of course they do. They were referred to as 'sidearms'.
> except for people who have another weapon system lying about
> somewhere...
>
>
--
SaPeIsMa
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets
>>> they want
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Good for you.
>>
>> Other people will state "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".
>
> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>
Really ?
On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who have
> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
>
LOL
MORE ignorant cant.
If as you claim "pistols .. haven't really any proper utility in a modern
military organisation", then why are pistols issued to troops ?
Why oh why, do you have a need to continue demonstrating your abyssal
ignorance, that apparently is only surpassed by your stupid arrogance ?
William Black
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>> muskets they want
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> Good for you.
>>>
>>> Other people will state "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".
>>
>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>
>
>
> Really ?
> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
>> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
>> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who have
>> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
>>
>
> LOL
> MORE ignorant cant.
> If as you claim "pistols .. haven't really any proper utility in a
> modern military organisation", then why are pistols issued to troops ?
As a general rule, they're not...
William Black
The current issue rifle of the US military is the M16A2 or M16A4, both
commonly fitted with the M203 grenade launcher.
My understanding is that neither weapon, nor it's grenade throwing
accessory, a re legally available for sale in the USA without a permit.
SaPeIsMa
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Good for you.
>>>>
>>>> Other people will state "A well regulated militia being necessary to
>>>> the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear
>>>> arms shall not be infringed".
>>>
>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Really ?
>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>
> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
>
Maybe not the M16
Although, if SCOTUS goes the same with with MacDonald as it did with Heller,
it's quite possible that the laws which prevent this (1934NFA and 1868 FOPA)
are more than likely to be challenged as unconstitutional.
>>> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
>>> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who have
>>> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
>>>
>>
>> LOL
>> MORE ignorant cant.
>> If as you claim "pistols .. haven't really any proper utility in a modern
>> military organisation", then why are pistols issued to troops ?
>
> As a general rule, they're not...
>
As I wrote, more ignorant can hidden behind a generality
Arved Sandstrom
That is exactly part of the point I was making. That is what was
envisioned *then*, when having the latest weapons didn't mean more than
having a smoothbore musket. The Founding Fathers and their cohorts
couldn't have had a clue what a soldier would have been armed with 200
or 300 years later. And if they had had, there is absolutely no reason
to believe that they would have thought the same way.
AHS
William Black
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hh5ogi$u09$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Good for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other people will state "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".
>>>>
>>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Really ?
>>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>>
>> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
>>
>
> Maybe not the M16
You're a subject slave sheeple shit-head...
End of story.
RD (The Sandman)
@news.eternal-september.org:
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Good for you.
>>>>
>>>> Other people will state "A well regulated militia being necessary to
>>>> the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and
bear
>>>> arms shall not be infringed".
>>>
>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Really ?
>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>
> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
Can't purchase any full auto in the US manufactured post 1986.
>>> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
>>> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who
have
>>> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
>>>
>>
>> LOL
>> MORE ignorant cant.
>> If as you claim "pistols .. haven't really any proper utility in a
>> modern military organisation", then why are pistols issued to troops ?
>
> As a general rule, they're not...
Depends on the troop. They are issued to security, police, sentries and
certain officers and pilots with their flight crews unless that has
changed.
RD (The Sandman)
news:Fe2dndIa_eJj9qvW...@posted.cpinternet:
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hh5ogi$u09$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Good for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other people will state "A well regulated militia being necessary
>>>>> to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep
>>>>> and bear arms shall not be infringed".
>>>>
>>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Really ?
>>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>>
>> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
>>
>
> Maybe not the M16
> Although, if SCOTUS goes the same with with MacDonald as it did with
> Heller, it's quite possible that the laws which prevent this (1934NFA
> and 1868 FOPA) are more than likely to be challenged as
> unconstitutional.
Perhaps, but I would doubt it. I would imagine that the ruling on
MacDonald will be quite narrow.
RD (The Sandman)
@news.eternal-september.org:
No full auto firearm is available in the US if it was manufactured after
1986. Older full auto are perfectly legal under federal law but may be
illegal under various state laws. Where legal, they require a background
check and a tax stamp.
RD (The Sandman)
While there is truth in what you say, Arved, in the days our constitution
was written, the civilians WERE the military. They were expected to show
up when called to service bearing their personally owned firearms of a
type in common usage at the time. That militia still exists under 10 USC
311 and the type of arm in common use today is not a musket or a
smoothbore. Additionally, the reason for that state militia was in part
to protect state sovereignty from an overreaching federal government.
RD (The Sandman)
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:hh5ogi$u09$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other people will state "A well regulated militia being necessary
>>>>>> to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep
>>>>>> and bear arms shall not be infringed".
>>>>>
>>>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really ?
>>>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>>>
>>> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe not the M16
> So you can't buy the standard combat rifle of your country's armed
> forces.
I can buy the semi auto equivalent of it until they are coming out of my
house. I just bought two AR15s. Same weapon, same power, same
cartridge, just no select fire. Oh, well I am going to convert one of
them 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel shortly anyway.
Now, how many AR15s can you buy?
William Black
That translates as meaning you still can't buy an M-16A2 and its
grenade launcher.
How can you stand to live with this dreadful abrogation of your
constitutional rights?
More to the point, what are you going to do about it?
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:hh5ogi$u09$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>> Good for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other people will state "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".
>>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really ?
>>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
>
> Can't purchase any full auto in the US manufactured post 1986.
Same difference.
When will you be demanding your constitutional rights to be a well
organised militia?
>
>>>> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
>>>> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who
> have
>>>> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
>>>>
>>> LOL
>>> MORE ignorant cant.
>>> If as you claim "pistols .. haven't really any proper utility in a
>>> modern military organisation", then why are pistols issued to troops ?
>> As a general rule, they're not...
>
> Depends on the troop. They are issued to security, police, sentries and
> certain officers and pilots with their flight crews unless that has
> changed.
I have news, military cops are cops, not soldiers, they just dress as
soldiers some of the time, but they're really cops...
If they need to become soldiers they dump the pistols and get a rifle...
Aircraft crews do not use a pistol as their primary weapon, they have a
big thing with wings for that...
tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets they want
> >> ;-)
> >
> > Good for you.
> >
> > Other people will state "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".
>
> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>
> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who have
> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
That must be why prior to deploying many of the units I"ve prepared we
scour the other units and take pistols from them to give to the unit
scheduled to deploy...
tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
> >
> > "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
> >>>> muskets they want
> >>>> ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Good for you.
> >>>
> >>> Other people will state "A well regulated militia being necessary to
> >>> the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear
> >>> arms shall not be infringed".
> >>
> >> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Really ?
> > On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>
> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
Without paying a tax...
So it seems we are allowed modern military arms...
>
> >> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
> >> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who have
> >> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
> >>
> >
> > LOL
> > MORE ignorant cant.
> > If as you claim "pistols .. haven't really any proper utility in a
> > modern military organisation", then why are pistols issued to troops ?
>
> As a general rule, they're not...
As a general rules you'd be wrong
William Black
> In article <hh5ogi$u09$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>> Good for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other people will state "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".
>>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really ?
>>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
>
> Without paying a tax...
> So it seems we are allowed modern military arms...
>
Can you have a word with them and get back to me please.
James Beck
While it's true that they didn't 'know' I'm not sure that you can't
infer that they suspected. They could have made the second amendment
explicit. They chose to limit it instead.
Arved Sandstrom
> like they may sound reasonable
Here's a newsflash, SPIM: maybe, just maybe, if my arguments sound
reasonable to some then they have some reason contained with them. Just
because you are predisposed and biased to distrust everything some
people say doesn't mean that those people have nothing to say.
> It's aslso indivitavie of your mental dishonesty that you conflate a
> single user weapon like a select-fire rigle with a crew operated arm
> like a mortar
Are you seriously disputing what I said, that there are some pro-gunners
who do believe that weapons like mortars and light ATGMs fall under the
Second Amendment? Because if you believe that there are no such people
you are seriously deluded.
> 1) Since mortars are NOT considered individual arms in a modern
> military, there is NO expectation under the 2nd that it is protected
> 2) A select-fire arm, and this includes an attachaed greande launcher
> on the other hand are fairly standard military issue to troups.
> Therefore under the expectation that an individual should knwo how to
> handle one if called up, it is protected by the 2nd
That's part of my main point - we don't know that attached grenade
launchers _are_ protected by the Second Amendment. _You_ think so, many
other people think so, but since the Founding Fathers wouldn't have
known an attached M203 grenade launcher if it bit them in the ass, we
have no idea what they would have thought about it.
> Too bad that you have to be dishonest and use fallacious logic to make
> your argument
Too bad that you have to believe that all arguments that _you_ disagree
with are dishonest or fallacious. Of course, by saying so it saves you
from having to develop counter-arguments.
> But it's typical of both the overt and covert hoplophobes to do so.
Oh please. I was out shooting bunnies just last weekend. Does it bother
you deeply to think that many people who disagree with you also like to
hunt and shoot? Does it fit your worldview better if everything is black
and white?
AHS
William Black
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>> But it's typical of both the overt and covert hoplophobes to do so.
>
> Oh please. I was out shooting bunnies just last weekend. Does it bother
> you deeply to think that many people who disagree with you also like to
> hunt and shoot? Does it fit your worldview better if everything is black
> and white?
It does rather seem so.
Anyone who doesn't believe in the absolute right to ventilate with
maximum prejudice any passing shop-lifter with the firearm of their
choice (but preferably a pistol with a larger bore than .4 of an inch)
is considered a gun grabbing hoplophobe...
tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
I have news ffor you..
Your, wrong, again..
Unless you like to explain my our MP company has 45 M1151's and a whole
but load of M249, M2 and Mk19...
tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <hh5ogi$u09$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
> >> SaPeIsMa wrote:
> >>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
> >>>>>> muskets they want
> >>>>>> ;-)
> >>>>> Good for you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Other people will state "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".
> >>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Really ?
> >>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
> >> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
> >
> > Without paying a tax...
> > So it seems we are allowed modern military arms...
> >
> You're disagreeing with a couple of other posters here.
Doesn't change the fact you are wrong.
Tommy Shannon
I have one.
Lots of folks here have them...legally, you nincompoop!
GREAT for Moose hunting, as they tend to just POP out of the ground!
> How can you stand to live with this dreadful abrogation of your
> constitutional rights?
>
> More to the point, what are you going to do about it?
Do about what?
I already have one.
Arved Sandstrom
>
>> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>>> On Dec 24, 5:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>> muskets they want
>>> to technology available in the 1700s; instead, federal appellate
>>> courts have consistently said it applies even to the Internet. So
>>> why should guns - and the Second Amendment - be treated any
>>> differently?
>>>
>>> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find
>>> stuff!
>> That's true as far as it goes. There are two points I'd make. For
>> starters, the First Amendment has never been interpreted to be without
>> limitations,
>
I was aware of that. So are you. Some of your newsgroup cohorst
evidently are not.
> and it _is_ interpreted in the context of the technology
>> of the day. That some of the core principles expressed in that
>> amendment still hold true does not mean that technology has not been
>> taken into account.
>
> Also true of the Second Amendment. The principle is the keeping and
> bearing of arms, not that it was a musket back in the day. It was to
> give civilians the use of the same weaponry as the military had since the
> civilians in time of crisis were the military.
Right. Major difference: now, and going back a good ways, the military
is no longer composed of citizen-soldiers. Neither the regular military
nor the federal/state guards are anything but trained professional FT or
PT soldiers.
>> Second, and along these lines, back in the day nobody conceived of
>> your average militiaman as sporting anything more than a musket or
>> two, and maybe a brace of pistols if he had a few shekels to throw
>> around. They weren't thinking of full automatic SMGs or rifles or
>> LMGs, or grenades as effective and easy to use as they are now, or
>> shoulder-launched AT weapons. IOW, your single rifleman is now a hell
>> of a lot more lethal, and maybe, just maybe, the Founding Fathers
>> weren't quite that prescient.
>
> Perhaps, but let's look at this definition from 1939 and the US Supreme
> Court in US v Miller.
>
> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
> States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly
> enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
> in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for
> military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for
> service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "
>
> Pay particular attention to that last sentence. I doubt that muskets and
> smoothbores are "...of the king in common use at the time." Now, as to
> whether or not that applies to full auto weaponry is another point.
> Certainly those weapons are in common use in the military and legal
> federally as long as certain parameters are met and the gun wasn't
> manufactured since 1986.
[ SNIP ]
I understand all that. I think all reasonable people know perfectly well
what was meant by Militia way back when, and I think all reasonable
people accept that back then it was intended that militia men would own
weapons commonly used by a rifleman of the day.
I think most reasonable observers would agree that a typical assault
rifle of the kind commonly in use by riflemen today falls under the
Second Amendment. Even if the FFs weren't thinking of them. But it's
more of a stretch to think that machine guns - crew-serves - fall into
that category.
As for grenades, well, I guess you'd have to agree that since any
riflemen might be carrying a few, that the Second Amendment ought to
cover those. Dunno that I am completely comfortable with the notion of
just anyone going out and buying a case of grenades, though.
AHS
William Black
Where do you buy your grenades?
Kerryn Offord
This is more a fascination with side arms and their "status symbol"
status rather than their practicalities.
How many of those people scouring away for a side arm are really any
good with it? Compared with their primary issued weapon? (I'm not
talking about people who are issued with a side arm because their
primary weapon isn't overly personal, like say, a 7.62 mm MG)
And how much more ammo for their primary weapon could they carry for the
weight of the side arm, holster, cleaning kit, and spare ammo?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
tankfixer
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
You know I've corrected you on this a couple of times.
The current weapon required by most MTOE is the M4, with a few units
still being required the M16A2 as the authorized weapon.
A very few units still call for the M16A4.
Of the units I am intimately familiar with a great many that are
required M16a2 have M4 issued instead.
And to say they are commonly fitted is a mistake.
Units may have from zero authorized to up to 18 or so.
tankfixer
@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz says...
>
> tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
> >> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets they want
> >>>> ;-)
> >>> Good for you.
> >>>
> >>> Other people will state "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".
> >> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
> >>
> >> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
> >> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who have
> >> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
> >
> > That must be why prior to deploying many of the units I"ve prepared we
> > scour the other units and take pistols from them to give to the unit
> > scheduled to deploy...
>
> This is more a fascination with side arms and their "status symbol"
> status rather than their practicalities.
The directives to add pistols to units comes not from the units but from
DA...
>
> How many of those people scouring away for a side arm are really any
> good with it? Compared with their primary issued weapon? (I'm not
> talking about people who are issued with a side arm because their
> primary weapon isn't overly personal, like say, a 7.62 mm MG)
They all qualify with it, so they meet the army standards.
SaPeIsMa
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
>> actually the 2nd amendment envisioned the well-regulated male to be armed
>> as were the soldiers, with the latest weapons avalable.
>
> That is exactly part of the point I was making. That is what was
> envisioned *then*, when having the latest weapons didn't mean more than
> having a smoothbore musket. The Founding Fathers and their cohorts
> couldn't have had a clue what a soldier would have been armed with 200 or
> 300 years later. And if they had had, there is absolutely no reason to
> believe that they would have thought the same way.
>
LOL
arved channeling the Framers of the Constitution
They didn't NEED to know
But they wanted to be sure that
a) There was NO STANDING ARMY
b) The citizens would have the personal weapons EQUAL to ANY army.
And to know that, you just need to READ what they wrote, instead of your
fantasies
SaPeIsMa
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:hh5ogi$u09$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other people will state "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".
>>>>>
>>>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really ?
>>>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>>>
>>> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe not the M16
> So you can't buy the standard combat rifle of your country's armed forces.
>
> You're a subject slave sheeple shit-head...
>
Just proves that you are once again spinning off with your stupid
presumptions
I'm not an American.
<snicker>
You're such a fathead.
SaPeIsMa
Me directly ?
Very little
Me as part of pro-2nd Amendment groups ?
Well, let's see
In the past 20 years, at least 30 states changed their carry laws
One (Alaska) completely eliminated any restrictions, to emulate Vermont.
In the meantime, a series of cases, of which Heller and Nordyke
redirected legal positions much closer to the original intent of the Framers
And we have Macdonald in the works with SCOTUS, expecting to extend even
further teh ground laid by Heller.
SaPeIsMa
"James Beck" <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k43dj5d54mg2b8fma...@4ax.com...
Oh do tell, how they chose to "limit the 2nd Amendment"
We do like shows of stupidity
We find them amusing
SaPeIsMa
Funny, to hear an apologist for his own government demand answers from
people who at least have succeeded in keeping their rights and have done
more in the past 40 years to advance them instead of just bending their
necks like good sheeple.
>>
>>>>> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
>>>>> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who
>> have
>>>>> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
>>>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>> MORE ignorant cant.
>>>> If as you claim "pistols .. haven't really any proper utility in a
>>>> modern military organisation", then why are pistols issued to troops ?
>>> As a general rule, they're not...
>>
>> Depends on the troop. They are issued to security, police, sentries and
>> certain officers and pilots with their flight crews unless that has
>> changed.
>
> I have news, military cops are cops, not soldiers, they just dress as
> soldiers some of the time, but they're really cops...
>
Funny, though, they still are subject to Military Code instead of
Civilian...
Guess that makes them soldiers.
> If they need to become soldiers they dump the pistols and get a rifle...
>
Suuuuuure, they do
And you will grow a brain real soon too..
> Aircraft crews do not use a pistol as their primary weapon, they have a
> big thing with wings for that...
>
Doh !
And next you'll be telling us that cooks use knives, pots and laddles..
You keep demonstrating that you can make your arsehole bigger every time
you bend over
But frankly we already know that you are one
No need to demonstrate how big a one you are
SaPeIsMa
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>>> But it's typical of both the overt and covert hoplophobes to do so.
>>
>> Oh please. I was out shooting bunnies just last weekend. Does it bother
>> you deeply to think that many people who disagree with you also like to
>> hunt and shoot? Does it fit your worldview better if everything is black
>> and white?
>
> It does rather seem so.
>
> Anyone who doesn't believe in the absolute right to ventilate with maximum
> prejudice any passing shop-lifter with the firearm of their choice (but
> preferably a pistol with a larger bore than .4 of an inch) is considered a
> gun grabbing hoplophobe...
>
LOL
With this kind of crap, we're better off with you arguing for the other
side.
SaPeIsMa
<YAWN>
I never claimed that ignorant bullshit was "nothing"
Even ignorant bullshit is "something"
Although, my word for it is "manure".
>> It's aslso indivitavie of your mental dishonesty that you conflate a
>> single user weapon like a select-fire rigle with a crew operated arm like
>> a mortar
>
> Are you seriously disputing what I said, that there are some pro-gunners
> who do believe that weapons like mortars and light ATGMs fall under the
> Second Amendment? Because if you believe that there are no such people you
> are seriously deluded.
>
I don't really care what some pro-gunners believe
And frankly it's irrelevant what they believe
And this whole argument about what some pro-gunners may or may not believe
is just another strawman to distract from the issue.
The Framers wanted able-bodied men to be armed and capable of using current
military weapons if called up. They also wanted them to have said weapons so
that they could practice with them and bring them along if called up.
>> 1) Since mortars are NOT considered individual arms in a modern
>> military, there is NO expectation under the 2nd that it is protected
>> 2) A select-fire arm, and this includes an attachaed greande launcher
>> on the other hand are fairly standard military issue to troups. Therefore
>> under the expectation that an individual should knwo how to handle one if
>> called up, it is protected by the 2nd
>
> That's part of my main point - we don't know that attached grenade
> launchers _are_ protected by the Second Amendment. _You_ think so, many
> other people think so, but since the Founding Fathers wouldn't have known
> an attached M203 grenade launcher if it bit them in the ass, we have no
> idea what they would have thought about it.
>
So stop blathering about your ignorance, about what the Framers would have
thought of an M203 Grenade launcher
But on the other hand, we DO know from their writings and discussions on the
subject, that they wanted able-bodied men to have as personal possessions
those arms which they would need if they were called up to face an army
That means the tools that an army then and an army now would use
Which is why they used the word "arms" as a generic, instead of specifying
swords, muskets and pistols.
And that pretty well puts the kibbosh on your claim of an M203 Grenade
laucher
>> Too bad that you have to be dishonest and use fallacious logic to make
>> your argument
>
> Too bad that you have to believe that all arguments that _you_ disagree
> with are dishonest or fallacious. Of course, by saying so it saves you
> from having to develop counter-arguments.
>
Sorry bub
Once again you try to weasel from the issue
I don't have to "believe" that any argument is fallacious or dishonest
because I disagree with them
I will on the other hand apply the label to any argument that is couched in
an intellectually dishnonest or fallacious manner
That your argument qualifies is why it was labelled as such
And that is the last I will comment on that issue
>> But it's typical of both the overt and covert hoplophobes to do so.
>
> Oh please. I was out shooting bunnies just last weekend. Does it bother
> you deeply to think that many people who disagree with you also like to
> hunt and shoot? Does it fit your worldview better if everything is black
> and white?
>
You discredit the side you argue, when you do so with dishonest or
fallacious arguments
With friends like you, who needs ennemies
SaPeIsMa
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25a05e0...@news.bytemine.net...
And then arved wonders why he gets called for his dishonest or fallacious
arguments.
Arved Sandstrom
[ SNIP ]
>> That's part of my main point - we don't know that attached grenade
>> launchers _are_ protected by the Second Amendment. _You_ think so,
>> many other people think so, but since the Founding Fathers wouldn't
>> have known an attached M203 grenade launcher if it bit them in the
>> ass, we have no idea what they would have thought about it.
>>
>
> So stop blathering about your ignorance, about what the Framers would
> have thought of an M203 Grenade launcher
> But on the other hand, we DO know from their writings and discussions on
> the subject, that they wanted able-bodied men to have as personal
> possessions those arms which they would need if they were called up to
> face an army
> That means the tools that an army then and an army now would use
> Which is why they used the word "arms" as a generic, instead of
> specifying swords, muskets and pistols.
> And that pretty well puts the kibbosh on your claim of an M203 Grenade
> laucher
[ SNIP ]
Don't use the word "we" when it's more appropriate to use "I". And don't
use the word "know" when it's more appropriate to use the word "believe".
_You_ _believe_ that the Founding Fathers would have had it the way you
believe it ought to be. All we know is that they wanted militia of their
era, and for the imaginable foreseeable future, to have the same common
arms as a typical soldier would have. Well, guess what? We are not now,
in 2009, even remotely in a future that would have been imaginable or
foreseeable by late 18th century thinkers. The firepower and battlefield
capability of a single infantryman is enormously greater than what they
could conceive of. And a major point - we no longer fight wars with
citizen soldiers.
The ground rules have changed a great deal. So it's a real stretch to
blindly apply principles that are over two centuries old whose premises
have radically altered.
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
SPIM, you're doing way more wishful analysis than I am. I am merely
pointing out that your sentence (b) above applied *when* they wrote it,
and there is no evidence that they extrapolated centuries into the
future, into greatly changed technological and societal circumstances,
when they penned their material.
My point is, and in fact this is what is happening anyway, that a
common-sense SCOTUS and lesser courts need to *interpret* (you do
understand the word "interpret", do you not?) what the FFs said, and see
what makes sense now. And obviously they don't completely agree with you.
By the way, bright spark, last I checked there *is* a standing army. Has
been, in fact, for a long time. How do you deal with that factoid?
AHS
pyotr filipivich
<r_c_...@hushmail.com> on or about Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:14:44 -0800
(PST) did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in
talk.politics.guns the following:
>On Dec 24, 2:28�pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>wrote:
>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets they want
>> ;-)
>
>Good for you.
I say, let us make sure that those who feel the right to keep and
bear arms should be limited to only those arms available in 1793 limit
their exercise of free speak to only those technologies available in
1793.
After all,the Founding Fathers had no way of knowing about Cable
television, digital radio, or the Internet.
>Other people will state "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".
Works for me.
-
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
SaPeIsMa
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Arved Sandstrom" <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3ewZm.59028$PH1.40785@edtnps82...
> [ SNIP ]
>
>>> That's part of my main point - we don't know that attached grenade
>>> launchers _are_ protected by the Second Amendment. _You_ think so, many
>>> other people think so, but since the Founding Fathers wouldn't have
>>> known an attached M203 grenade launcher if it bit them in the ass, we
>>> have no idea what they would have thought about it.
>>>
>>
>> So stop blathering about your ignorance, about what the Framers would
>> have thought of an M203 Grenade launcher
>> But on the other hand, we DO know from their writings and discussions on
>> the subject, that they wanted able-bodied men to have as personal
>> possessions those arms which they would need if they were called up to
>> face an army
>> That means the tools that an army then and an army now would use
>> Which is why they used the word "arms" as a generic, instead of
>> specifying swords, muskets and pistols.
>> And that pretty well puts the kibbosh on your claim of an M203 Grenade
>> laucher
> [ SNIP ]
>
> Don't use the word "we" when it's more appropriate to use "I". And don't
> use the word "know" when it's more appropriate to use the word "believe".
>
Funny that, because, there are a lot of us to qualify for a "we"
And the evidence is there to qualify for a "know"
Just because you confuse knowledge with belief and wishfull thinking, does
not mean the rest of us do.
> _You_ _believe_ that the Founding Fathers would have had it the way you
> believe it ought to be. All we know is that they wanted militia of their
> era, and for the imaginable foreseeable future, to have the same common
> arms as a typical soldier would have. Well, guess what? We are not now, in
> 2009, even remotely in a future that would have been imaginable or
> foreseeable by late 18th century thinkers. The firepower and battlefield
> capability of a single infantryman is enormously greater than what they
> could conceive of. And a major point - we no longer fight wars with
> citizen soldiers.
>
> The ground rules have changed a great deal. So it's a real stretch to
> blindly apply principles that are over two centuries old whose premises
> have radically altered.
>
<YAWN>
And how do you protect a nation against a modern army if you did not want
citizens capable of defending themselves from such an army ?
This stupid nonsense is on the same scale as claiming that since the Framers
did not encompass the Web, it is therefore way beyond the level of
communication that they imagined or could imagine, and therefore the web is
NOT a protected mode of Free Speech.
You can NOT make such an argument and claim that it's true for A but not for
B
To argue that one right is NOT protected, because the tools have changed, is
to argue that other rights are not protected because those protected items
have changed too.
And the Supreme Court addressed that issue and DISMISSED IT OUT OF HAND.
So if you don't like the fact that YOUR claim has been dismissed as BOGUS,
go take it up with the Supremes.
And stop arguing something that is a DONE DEAL.
SaPeIsMa
Who cares if they did or did NOT
They CLEARLY STATED their intent
To make the citizen well-enough armed that if needed they could stand up for
service with their arms or for defense against a modern army with their arms
The issue of changing technology disqualifying their intent is BULLSHIT and
was rightfully dismissed by SCOTUS
> My point is, and in fact this is what is happening anyway, that a
> common-sense SCOTUS and lesser courts need to *interpret* (you do
> understand the word "interpret", do you not?) what the FFs said, and see
> what makes sense now. And obviously they don't completely agree with you.
>
But they DO COMPELETELY DISAGREE with YOU
> By the way, bright spark, last I checked there *is* a standing army. Has
> been, in fact, for a long time. How do you deal with that factoid?
>
Actually it only exists because it has to be funded EACH YEAR
The real "standing army" that is being formed is occurring with the
militarization of police forces, who have historically shown far less
compunction about threading on the Constitution to enforce local laws.
Arved Sandstrom
I distinctly recall, when deploying for real (and it happened a few
times), junior officers scouring the battalion armouries for M16s. Not
for pistols. I'll admit, we were always deploying into environments
where a pistol would have been of precisely zero usefulness...which the
junior (company grade) officers were quick to recognize.
AHS
Tommy Shannon
Make my own.
SaPeIsMa
LOL
There are reasons why junior officers don't want to stick out in modern
warfare by not being armed the same way as the troops
1) It identifies them as officers
2) It reduces the fire-power of the unit
But to go from there to argue that this demonstrates the "zero usefulness"
of a pistol, is just idiotic
(And then you accuse me of being black and white <snicker>)
Maybe you need to keep in mind that combat is NOT ALWAYS long-range field
work
As has been shown in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Vietnam
Some combat is close-up, where a pistol is far more usefull than a rifle
r_c_...@hushmail.com
> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets they want
> >> ;-)
>
> > Good for you.
>
> > Other people will state "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".
>
> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
Please be specific in your definition of "modern military firearms"
and "allowed".
>
> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who have
> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
>
It's my understanding that military folks are issued sidearms. You
may want to check your facts.
RD (The Sandman)
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:hh5ogi$u09$1 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>> Good for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other people will state "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".
>>>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really ?
>>>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>>> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
>>
>> Can't purchase any full auto in the US manufactured post 1986.
>
> Same difference.
>
> When will you be demanding your constitutional rights to be a well
> organised militia?
No need....see 10 USC 311. Spells it all out. I am currently too old to
serve and I don't see that changing in the near future. I can volunteer
however.
>>>>> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any
>>>>> proper utility in a modern military organisation, except for
>>>>> people who
>> have
>>>>> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
>>>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>> MORE ignorant cant.
>>>> If as you claim "pistols .. haven't really any proper utility in a
>>>> modern military organisation", then why are pistols issued to
>>>> troops ?
>>> As a general rule, they're not...
>>
>> Depends on the troop. They are issued to security, police, sentries
>> and certain officers and pilots with their flight crews unless that
>> has changed.
>
> I have news, military cops are cops, not soldiers, they just dress
> as soldiers some of the time, but they're really cops...
That isn't news. However, they are military....just have a different
chain of command.
> If they need to become soldiers they dump the pistols and get a
> rifle...
Rifles are already available to all military police. Walk between one
and his charges sometime. ;)
> Aircraft crews do not use a pistol as their primary weapon, they have
> a big thing with wings for that...
Who claimed it was a primary weapon? Are you making things up again?
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
RD (The Sandman)
@news.eternal-september.org:
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:hh5t2e$i4f$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:hh5ogi$u09$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all
the
>>>>>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>> Good for you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Other people will state "A well regulated militia being
necessary
>>>>>>>> to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep
>>>>>>>> and bear arms shall not be infringed".
>>>>>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really ?
>>>>>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>>>>> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe not the M16
>>> So you can't buy the standard combat rifle of your country's armed
>>> forces.
>>
>> I can buy the semi auto equivalent of it
>
> That translates as meaning you still can't buy an M-16A2 and its
> grenade launcher.
IOW, you prefer to ignore the rest of my answer. Figures. ;)
> How can you stand to live with this dreadful abrogation of your
> constitutional rights?
I am working to get a good resolution on MacDonald v Chicago.
> More to the point, what are you going to do about it?
See above.
BTW, I still have a lot more freedom than you do. Since we have now
gotten your questions out of the way, let's go back to mine:
I can buy the semi auto equivalent of it until they are coming out of my
house. I just bought two AR15s. Same weapon, same power, same
cartridge, just no select fire. Oh, well I am going to convert one of
them 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel shortly anyway.
Now, how many AR15s can you buy?
RD (The Sandman)
Down at the corner grenade store. They are on sale at most K-Marts and
7-11s. Where do you get yours?
RD (The Sandman)
> tankfixer wrote:
>> In article <hh5ogi$u09$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>> Good for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other people will state "A well regulated militia being necessary
>>>>>> to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep
>>>>>> and bear arms shall not be infringed".
>>>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really ?
>>>> On what do you base that ignorant claim ?
>>> You can't buy an M 16 A4 in the shops without some sort of permit.
>>
>> Without paying a tax...
>> So it seems we are allowed modern military arms...
>>
> You're disagreeing with a couple of other posters here.
Actually, he isn't. He is military and the other couple of posters are
civilians.
> Can you have a word with them and get back to me please.
Consider it done.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:16:41 GMT, Arved Sandstrom
> <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ray O'Hara wrote:
>>> "Arved Sandstrom" <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7I4Zm.58940$PH1.25631@edtnps82...
>>>> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 24, 5:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>>> muskets they want
>>>> AHS
>>>
>>> actually the 2nd amendment envisioned the well-regulated male to be
>>> armed as were the soldiers, with the latest weapons avalable.
>>
>>That is exactly part of the point I was making. That is what was
>>envisioned *then*, when having the latest weapons didn't mean more
>>than having a smoothbore musket. The Founding Fathers and their
>>cohorts couldn't have had a clue what a soldier would have been armed
>>with 200 or 300 years later. And if they had had, there is absolutely
>>no reason to believe that they would have thought the same way.
>
>
> While it's true that they didn't 'know' I'm not sure that you can't
> infer that they suspected. They could have made the second amendment
> explicit. They chose to limit it instead.
>
Other than the fact that it simply isn't absolute just like any other
right, just how is it limited in your opinion?
RD (The Sandman)
>> Too bad that your arguments are so UN-reassonable even though to some
>> like they may sound reasonable
>
> Here's a newsflash, SPIM: maybe, just maybe, if my arguments sound
> reasonable to some then they have some reason contained with them.
> Just because you are predisposed and biased to distrust everything
> some people say doesn't mean that those people have nothing to say.
>
>> It's aslso indivitavie of your mental dishonesty that you conflate a
>> single user weapon like a select-fire rigle with a crew operated arm
>> like a mortar
>
> Are you seriously disputing what I said, that there are some
> pro-gunners who do believe that weapons like mortars and light ATGMs
> fall under the Second Amendment? Because if you believe that there are
> no such people you are seriously deluded.
>
>> 1) Since mortars are NOT considered individual arms in a modern
>> military, there is NO expectation under the 2nd that it is protected
>> 2) A select-fire arm, and this includes an attachaed greande
>> launcher on the other hand are fairly standard military issue to
>> troups. Therefore under the expectation that an individual should
>> knwo how to handle one if called up, it is protected by the 2nd
>
> That's part of my main point - we don't know that attached grenade
> launchers _are_ protected by the Second Amendment. _You_ think so,
> many other people think so, but since the Founding Fathers wouldn't
> have known an attached M203 grenade launcher if it bit them in the
> ass, we have no idea what they would have thought about it.
My personal opinion (and experience tells me that I am probably in the
majority) is that the 2A refers to rifles, shotguns and sidearms
(handguns) of a type in common use. That, to me, would be what the
common infantry types and officers would carry and would include full
auto short of an M60. No grenade launchers, no napalm, no F16s or
frigates.
RD (The Sandman)
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
>>> But it's typical of both the overt and covert hoplophobes to do
>>> so.
>>
>> Oh please. I was out shooting bunnies just last weekend. Does it
>> bother you deeply to think that many people who disagree with you
>> also like to hunt and shoot? Does it fit your worldview better if
>> everything is black and white?
>
> It does rather seem so.
>
> Anyone who doesn't believe in the absolute right to ventilate with
> maximum prejudice any passing shop-lifter with the firearm of their
> choice (but preferably a pistol with a larger bore than .4 of an inch)
> is considered a gun grabbing hoplophobe...
>
>
>
Ahhhh, Willy Black....the master of the overstatement. Oh well, at least
he did a good job on his homework regarding the number of people that
could have illegal firearms in the UK.
RD (The Sandman)
Remember that those limitations would then also apply to the rest of the
BoR. You cannot pick and choose. The principles remain the same even if
the technology has not. Can you imagine the reaction of James Madison or
Thomas Jefferson to the internet? Or TV?
RD (The Sandman)
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> Arved Sandstrom <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:7I4Zm.58940$PH1.25631@edtnps82:
>>
>>> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>>>> On Dec 24, 5:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>> muskets they want
>>>> Wake up. NO federal court ever said the First Amendment only
>>>> applied to technology available in the 1700s; instead, federal
>>>> appellate courts have consistently said it applies even to the
>>>> Internet. So why should guns - and the Second Amendment - be
>>>> treated any differently?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find
>>>> stuff!
>>> That's true as far as it goes. There are two points I'd make. For
>>> starters, the First Amendment has never been interpreted to be
>>> without limitations,
>>
>> Neither has the Second Amendment. So much for your first point.
>
> I was aware of that. So are you. Some of your newsgroup cohorst
> evidently are not.
>
>> and it _is_ interpreted in the context of the technology
>>> of the day. That some of the core principles expressed in that
>>> amendment still hold true does not mean that technology has not been
>>> taken into account.
>>
>> Also true of the Second Amendment. The principle is the keeping and
>> bearing of arms, not that it was a musket back in the day. It was to
>> give civilians the use of the same weaponry as the military had since
>> the civilians in time of crisis were the military.
>
> Right. Major difference: now, and going back a good ways, the military
> is no longer composed of citizen-soldiers. Neither the regular
> military nor the federal/state guards are anything but trained
> professional FT or PT soldiers.
>
>>> Second, and along these lines, back in the day nobody conceived of
>>> your average militiaman as sporting anything more than a musket or
>>> two, and maybe a brace of pistols if he had a few shekels to throw
>>> around. They weren't thinking of full automatic SMGs or rifles or
>>> LMGs, or grenades as effective and easy to use as they are now, or
>>> shoulder-launched AT weapons. IOW, your single rifleman is now a
>>> hell of a lot more lethal, and maybe, just maybe, the Founding
>>> Fathers weren't quite that prescient.
>>
>> Perhaps, but let's look at this definition from 1939 and the US
>> Supreme Court in US v Miller.
>>
>> "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
>> debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies
>> and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show
>> plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
>> capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of
>> citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that
>> ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear
>> bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
>> the time. "
>>
>> Pay particular attention to that last sentence. I doubt that muskets
>> and smoothbores are "...of the king in common use at the time." Now,
>> as to whether or not that applies to full auto weaponry is another
>> point. Certainly those weapons are in common use in the military and
>> legal federally as long as certain parameters are met and the gun
>> wasn't manufactured since 1986.
> [ SNIP ]
>
> I understand all that. I think all reasonable people know perfectly
> well what was meant by Militia way back when, and I think all
> reasonable people accept that back then it was intended that militia
> men would own weapons commonly used by a rifleman of the day.
It was still looked at that way in 1939.
> I think most reasonable observers would agree that a typical assault
> rifle of the kind commonly in use by riflemen today falls under the
> Second Amendment. Even if the FFs weren't thinking of them. But it's
> more of a stretch to think that machine guns - crew-serves - fall into
> that category.
I, personally, would draw the line at somewhere around an M60. Machine
pistols, sub machine guns, full auto M16s, M4s, BARs, SAWs, etc.. would
be considered individual weaponry and covered. Pompoms, M60s, etc would
not. The feds agree with me except for the 1986 rule. Some states don't,
but mine is not one of them.
> As for grenades, well, I guess you'd have to agree that since any
> riflemen might be carrying a few, that the Second Amendment ought to
> cover those. Dunno that I am completely comfortable with the notion of
> just anyone going out and buying a case of grenades, though.
Nor am I, but they are relatively easy to make so prohibiting them really
doesn't buy you much in protection from that type of weapon.
Bruce Bartho
Where does lil willy get his Knife license?
When does he get permission to access the key to his "safe storage
locker" when his Mommy isn't home?
William Black
Oh great, you get to carry a pistol...
It's not really a weapon you'd care to take with you as your primary
weapon in a modern war.
--
William Black
Ok, have fun.
William Black
> On Dec 26, 9:57 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets they want
>>>> ;-)
>>> Good for you.
>>> Other people will state "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".
>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>
> Please be specific in your definition of "modern military firearms"
> and "allowed".
That black thing made by Colt with the burst switch on the side and a
grenade launcher under the front bit.
>> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
>> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who have
>> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
>>
>
> It's my understanding that military folks are issued sidearms. You
> may want to check your facts.
Very few use a pistol as their primary weapon.
You really wouldn't want to use one in a battle.
William Black
> BTW, I still have a lot more freedom than you do. Since we have now
> gotten your questions out of the way, let's go back to mine:
>
> I can buy the semi auto equivalent of it until they are coming out of my
> house. I just bought two AR15s. Same weapon, same power, same
> cartridge, just no select fire. Oh, well I am going to convert one of
> them 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel shortly anyway.
>
> Now, how many AR15s can you buy?
None.
But I can buy Cuban cigars, and a house in a national park.
Come to think of it, I can have a holiday in Cuba and can visit many
places in the Middle East and not have to pretend to be a Canadian...
William Black
Having been in a couple of the above mentioned, in Texas of all places,
I have to say that your sense of humour needs work...
RD (The Sandman)
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
>> BTW, I still have a lot more freedom than you do. Since we have now
>> gotten your questions out of the way, let's go back to mine:
>>
>> I can buy the semi auto equivalent of it until they are coming out of
>> my house. I just bought two AR15s. Same weapon, same power, same
>> cartridge, just no select fire. Oh, well I am going to convert one
>> of them 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel shortly anyway.
>>
>> Now, how many AR15s can you buy?
>
> None.
Thank you.
> But I can buy Cuban cigars, and a house in a national park.
I don't smoke, and I live bordering one.
> Come to think of it, I can have a holiday in Cuba and can visit many
> places in the Middle East and not have to pretend to be a Canadian...
So can I.....just go through Mexico which is just over an hour away.
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
> news:hh8a06$a56$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, I still have a lot more freedom than you do. Since we have now
>>> gotten your questions out of the way, let's go back to mine:
>>>
>>> I can buy the semi auto equivalent of it until they are coming out of
>>> my house. I just bought two AR15s. Same weapon, same power, same
>>> cartridge, just no select fire. Oh, well I am going to convert one
>>> of them 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel shortly anyway.
>>>
>>> Now, how many AR15s can you buy?
>> None.
>
> Thank you.
>
>> But I can buy Cuban cigars, and a house in a national park.
>
> I don't smoke, and I live bordering one.
>
(Although I'd like an AKM)
Your point falls...
William Black
Your problem here is that your scorn doesn't work.
Bruce Bartho
I do.
I have the right.
YOU do not have the option.
Bruce Bartho
> Very few use a pistol as their primary weapon.
> You really wouldn't want to use one in a battle.
Explain why the police carry and use them primarily, you idiot!
Were you paid to advertise how stupid you are?
Bruce Bartho
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
>> BTW, I still have a lot more freedom than you do. Since we have now
>> gotten your questions out of the way, let's go back to mine:
>>
>> I can buy the semi auto equivalent of it until they are coming out of
>> my house. I just bought two AR15s. Same weapon, same power, same
>> cartridge, just no select fire. Oh, well I am going to convert one of
>> them 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel shortly anyway.
>>
>> Now, how many AR15s can you buy?
>
>
> None.
>
> But I can buy Cuban cigars, and a house in a national park.
>
> Come to think of it, I can have a holiday in Cuba and can visit many
> places in the Middle East and not have to pretend to be a Canadian...
That old chestnut?
I can go to Cuba anytime I desire, tell anybody I am from the USA, and
buy their crappy over-rated cigars.
The thing is, WHY would one want to go to that 4th world shit hole in
the first place?
Perhaps if I stock up on old GM, Ford, and Mopar sheet metal and engine
blocks, then I could make a few friends?
Bruce Bartho
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>> Where do you buy your grenades?
>> Down at the corner grenade store. They are on sale at most K-Marts
>> and 7-11s. Where do you get yours?
>>
>
> Having been in a couple of the above mentioned, in Texas of all places,
> I have to say that your sense of humour needs work...
Your lies are cute, willy.
The last "slurpy" you had was in a back alley.
William Black
> William Black wrote:
>
>
>> Very few use a pistol as their primary weapon.
>> You really wouldn't want to use one in a battle.
>
> Explain why the police carry and use them primarily, you idiot!
I have news.
Cops are not soldiers and don't fight battles.
William Black
lack of content noted...
Bruce Bartho
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>> But I can buy Cuban cigars, and a house in a national park.
Name that "national park" that you can buy a house in, Willy!
And why buy those over rated Cuban cigars?
You only THINK they are "good" because you are told they are on TV!
I too can buy them, but why?
>> I don't smoke, and I live bordering one.
> I never did want an AR-15.
You don't have the option, willy.
>
> (Although I'd like an AKM)
And you can't have one!
> Your point falls...
You just failed, and admitted it!
William Black
> William Black wrote:
>
>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
>
>>>> But I can buy Cuban cigars, and a house in a national park.
>
> Name that "national park" that you can buy a house in, Willy!
Any of the UK national parks.
http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/
> And why buy those over rated Cuban cigars?
Keep telling yourself that.
And smoke that Dominican Republic crap.
> You only THINK they are "good" because you are told they are on TV!
Tobacco advertising is banned in Europe.
Gray Ghost
news:MLidnV88D72wDKrW...@posted.cpinternet:
>
> "Arved Sandstrom" <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c_KZm.59084$PH1.42353@edtnps82...
>> Kerryn Offord wrote:
>>> tankfixer wrote:
>>>> In article <hh5iq8$77i$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
>>>>> r_c_...@hushmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the
>>>>>>> muskets they want
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>> Good for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other people will state "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".
>>>>> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
>>>>> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who
>>>>> have another weapon system lying about somewhere...
>>>>
>>>> That must be why prior to deploying many of the units I"ve prepared we
>>>> scour the other units and take pistols from them to give to the unit
>>>> scheduled to deploy...
>>>
>>> This is more a fascination with side arms and their "status symbol"
>>> status rather than their practicalities.
>>>
>>> How many of those people scouring away for a side arm are really any
>>> good with it? Compared with their primary issued weapon? (I'm not
>>> talking about people who are issued with a side arm because their
>>> primary weapon isn't overly personal, like say, a 7.62 mm MG)
>>>
>>> And how much more ammo for their primary weapon could they carry for
>>> the weight of the side arm, holster, cleaning kit, and spare ammo?
>>
>> I distinctly recall, when deploying for real (and it happened a few
>> times), junior officers scouring the battalion armouries for M16s. Not
>> for pistols. I'll admit, we were always deploying into environments
>> where a pistol would have been of precisely zero usefulness...which the
>> junior (company grade) officers were quick to recognize.
>>
>
> LOL
> There are reasons why junior officers don't want to stick out in modern
> warfare by not being armed the same way as the troops
> 1) It identifies them as officers
> 2) It reduces the fire-power of the unit
> But to go from there to argue that this demonstrates the "zero
> usefulness" of a pistol, is just idiotic
> (And then you accuse me of being black and white <snicker>)
>
> Maybe you need to keep in mind that combat is NOT ALWAYS long-range field
> work
> As has been shown in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Vietnam
> Some combat is close-up, where a pistol is far more usefull than a rifle
>
>
>
It occurred to me today that this is all bullshit anyway. By saying that a
pistol is different from a rifkles is different from an assault weapon these
jerkoffs are simply trying to break guns down into classes in order to
somehow make thier case and conceal thier ultimate goal which is no guns in
the hands of the unapproved classes.
Arved ahouls come visit me and I'll show how good a pistol is for blowing his
brains all over the lawn. Not effective? Come on down and find out.
--
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
"Hide the Decline"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
31,486 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, don't agree the
science is settled.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
What it appears to be all about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZszGJHbK4&feature=video_response
William Black
> It occurred to me today that this is all bullshit anyway. By saying that a
> pistol is different from a rifkles is different from an assault weapon these
> jerkoffs are simply trying to break guns down into classes in order to
> somehow make thier case and conceal thier ultimate goal which is no guns in
> the hands of the unapproved classes.
>
Can you define 'assault weapon' for me please.
It's not something I've ever heard of before.
Gray Ghost
> Gray Ghost wrote:
>
>> It occurred to me today that this is all bullshit anyway. By saying that
>> a pistol is different from a rifkles is different from an assault weapon
>> these jerkoffs are simply trying to break guns down into classes in
>> order to somehow make thier case and conceal thier ultimate goal which
>> is no guns in the hands of the unapproved classes.
>>
> Can you define 'assault weapon' for me please.
>
> It's not something I've ever heard of before.
>
Then you're crowning ignorance is on display ofr all.
SaPeIsMa
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hh8jov$43c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Gray Ghost wrote:
>
>> It occurred to me today that this is all bullshit anyway. By saying that
>> a pistol is different from a rifkles is different from an assault weapon
>> these jerkoffs are simply trying to break guns down into classes in order
>> to somehow make thier case and conceal thier ultimate goal which is no
>> guns in the hands of the unapproved classes.
>>
> Can you define 'assault weapon' for me please.
>
> It's not something I've ever heard of before.
>
"Assault Weapon" is a created term that was used in the "Assault Weapon Ban"
created under Clinton
The term was created to further confuse the ignorant with "Assault Rifle",
which has a specific military meaning
They are typically defined as
military-style
semi-automatic rifles
that have certain features such as
pistol grips
high-capacity detacheable magazines
bayonet lugs
In some case the rifles were named by make and model.
Other semi-auto rifles without those features were perfectly legal.
It was a PURELY COSMETIC definition
Gray Ghost
news:Ctqdne3UuMgZQarW...@posted.cpinternet:
> "Assault Weapon" is a created term
After arguing about what assault weapons were and weren't for years I'd not
give this asswipe the time of day or dignity of an answer.
Maybe he should just go ask the famouse liar Joish Sugarman who made it up in
the first place.
SaPeIsMa
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
>> BTW, I still have a lot more freedom than you do. Since we have now
>> gotten your questions out of the way, let's go back to mine:
>>
>> I can buy the semi auto equivalent of it until they are coming out of my
>> house. I just bought two AR15s. Same weapon, same power, same
>> cartridge, just no select fire. Oh, well I am going to convert one of
>> them 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel shortly anyway.
>>
>> Now, how many AR15s can you buy?
>
> None.
>
> But I can buy Cuban cigars, and a house in a national park.
>
> Come to think of it, I can have a holiday in Cuba and can visit many
> places in the Middle East and not have to pretend to be a Canadian...
>
billyboi changes the subject when his other nonsense gets called out,
because he's not man enough to admit he's wrong
You're so stupidly consistent it's not funny
SaPeIsMa
There you go with a silly strawman again
When did I ever claim that a pistol is a primary weapon in a modern war
This kind of nonssense just shows you to be intellectually dishonest and
does nothing for your (already shaky) credibility
Beng that I'm past 55, with an assortment of ills that go with a very actve
lifestyle in my younger days
I truly doubt that I will be going into battle soon
On the other hand, were I to need to go into battle soon, I would be
carrying any combination of
1) A semi-auto M15 t accurate enough to consistent let me reach out to 600
yards with iron sights
2) An accurized Norinco M14 also accurate enough for 600 yards
3) A 1911 accurate enough for 50 yards freehand, 100 yards with a rest
I'm still in good enough shape that I can easily quick march 20 miles with
40# of gear.
SaPeIsMa
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hh8cau$vr9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bruce Bartho wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>
>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> But I can buy Cuban cigars, and a house in a national park.
>>
>> Name that "national park" that you can buy a house in, Willy!
>
> Any of the UK national parks.
>
> http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/
>
>> And why buy those over rated Cuban cigars?
>
> Keep telling yourself that.
>
> And smoke that Dominican Republic crap.
>
>> You only THINK they are "good" because you are told they are on TV!
>
> Tobacco advertising is banned in Europe.
>
Who said anythng about adbertising, billy-boi ?
There's other ways to make such statements on TV without adverts.
r_c_...@hushmail.com
wrote:
> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 9:57 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> r_c_br...@hushmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Dec 24, 2:28 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> hell, I say let the "well regulated" gun goofballs carry all the muskets they want
> >>>> ;-)
> >>> Good for you.
> >>> Other people will state "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".
> >> Except, of course, you're not allowed modern military firearms.
>
> > Please be specific in your definition of "modern military firearms"
> > and "allowed".
>
> That black thing made by Colt with the burst switch on the side and a
> grenade launcher under the front bit.
That's the only "modern military firearm" not allowed?
>
> >> And you do insist on owning pistols, which haven't really any proper
> >> utility in a modern military organisation, except for people who have
> >> another weapon system lying about somewhere...
>
> > It's my understanding that military folks are issued sidearms. You
> > may want to check your facts.
>
> Very few use a pistol as their primary weapon.
>
"Primary weapon" and "any proper utility" are two different concepts.
William Black
So it's some sort of US legal loony tune description designed to stop
free men having guns...
Just so we all know that...
William Black
"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."
Which bit of the militia needs pistols?