2nd Amendment Interpretation
Robert S. Baron
Ray wrote:
>
> From: "Robert S. Baron" <rba...@primenet.com>
> Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Interpretation
>
> RSB: The supreme court clarified the signification attributed to the
> term militia as an abstract concept idealized after the best of the
> colonial militia at the time.
>
>RR: Please cite the relevant passages from the Supreme Court for
>"abstract concept idealized"
RSB: Have you ever questioned why the Miller court made no reference
to any federal legislation touching the militia? The answer will also
explain the signification attributed to the term militia. Yet it is
appallingly evident that you are unwilling to accept the obvious
answer. The Miller court did not consider federal legislation to have
any significant contribution to understanding the militia of the 2dAm,
instead drawing their signification from colonial sources; hence,
their understanding was of colonial militia. Certainly this was an
abstract concept for the Miller court, since any militia patterned
after colonial sources had long been discontinued by 1939. It would
also explain the court's concern to assure the continuation of such
forces should that ever be necessary. One may consider such forces to
be idealized; what could be more ideal than 'well regulated Militia'?
>RSB: The militia of Art.I Sec.8 could be,
> in fact, should be the well regulated one of the 2dAm.
>
>RR: Not what was intended. Read the Uniform Militia Act of
>1792. There was no "abstract" militia contemplated, and it was
>definitely separate from a federalized Art. I Sec.8 militia (unless
>called to federal duty).
RSB: Aside from the fact that the Miller court did not consider the
UMA of 1792 relevant to their view of 2dAm militia, one could agree
that the Second Congress actually intended to 'provide for organizing'
a well regulated militia patterned after idealized colonial militia.
But it was an abstract concept by 1939.
>RSB: While the 2dAm
> provides a constitutional mandate for the necessity of such militia,
> it gives no assurance that the Art.I Sec.8 militia will conform to the
> ideal, other than to guarantee the right of the people to possess
> ordinary military equipment shall not be infringed, nor their right
> abridged to bear such arms in defense of their security and liberty.
>
>RR: That's true. That's why Congress passed the enforcing legislation
>in 1792.
RSB: Perhaps you can explain just what it was that Congress was
'enforcing'? Did the 1792 legislation attempt to achieve any purpose
other than some degree of uniformity among the militia which the
states were expected to maintain and train? Certainly there is no
need to force citizens to purchase their own arms in order to
guarantee the right of the people to possess ordinary military
equipment; all that is actually necessary is to not infringe the
right. Just say no.
>RSB:As the Miller court held, the obvious purpose
> of the declaration and guarantee of the 2dAm is that continuation of
> idealized militia be assured,
>
>RR: You're getting funnier all the time. I must have read the Miller
>decision 20 times.. and NEVER found the word "idealized" in it.
RSB: What could be more idealized than well regulated colonial
militia? Can you say with certainty that 2dAm well regulated Militia
have ever existed as a reality rather than a goal? Or would the 'well
regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state' be a
conception of something in its most excellent or perfect form?
>RSB: The reason
> the court was mute on whether particular qualifications would apply
> to gaining the right is because it was a decided point that there
> were no qualifications on the 'right' to keep arms. Aymette:
> The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon,
> it being of the character before described as being intended
> by this provision [i.e., usually employed in civilized
> warfare]. But the right to bear arms is not of that
> unqualified right character, the citizens may bear them for
> the common defence, but it does not follow that they may be
> borne by an individual, merely to terrify the people or for
> purposes of private assassination.
>
>RR: OK for the sake of argument, let's say you're correct. I
>should have the right to possess a loaded bazooka or stinger missle
>plus launcher.
> But I do not have the right to use or transport either weapon
>unless it is being used as part of a well-regulated militia for
>the common defense.
> So unless WW3 breaks out, my stinger missle just collects
>dust in the basement. What possible utility could I get out
>of it?
RSB: OK, for the sake of argument, let's say that a Stinger missile
has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia (and I'm not convinced it does, but that is
another issue.) The great object is that every person be armed.
Utility is not the issue, possession is the issue. Until the proper
authorities herald the proclamation for continuation of the militia
according to the obvious purpose of the declaration of the 2dAm, the
guarantee of the 2dAm assures any citizen the right to possess that
weapon and likely to transport same, incidental to its possession.
>Miller: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that
> possession or use of a "<description of a type of gun>" at
> this time has some reasonable relationship to the
> preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we
> cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to
> keep and bear such an instrument.
>
>RSB: It is often instructive to substitute the dictionary meanings of words
> into a sentence in order to determine the true connotation.
>
> ANY - one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind
> TEND - to be likely to behave in a certain way or to have a certain
> characteristic
> SOME - an unspecified thing
> REASONABLE - not absurd
>
> RSB: The Miller court stated that their determination of whether the
> right to keep such an instrument was protected by the 2dAm depended on
> the presence of indiscriminate evidence likely (but not necessarily)
> showing that either possession or use of <description of a type of
> gun> has an unspecified but less than absurd relationship to either
> the preservation or efficiency of idealized colonial militia.
>
>RR: There are lots of dictionary definitions. None of them
>defines well-regulated as "idealized colonial."
> And you are absolutely slaughtered by the court's use of
>"or" between possession & use. This separates the decision
>from Aymette by requiring that either one of those actions aid
>a well-regulated militia.
> Since we have already determined that you cannot "use" the
>weapon for such a purpose unless war breaks out, that means
>that you must show that your mere possession of a gun
>aids a well-regulated (not "idealized") militia.
> I have not seen a convincing argument that a bazooka or
>a Glock in the basement of non-militia civilians does any
>such thing.
RSB: Nevertheless, possession of such an instrument would render
possible the effectiveness of such forces. Certainly the subsequent
statement by the court clarifies that ordinary military equipment, or
any weapon whose use could contribute to the common defense, would
motivate them to say that the 2dAm guarantees the right to keep and
bear such an instrument.
>RSB:The court's reference to the weapon by description of a type of gun
> and to protection of the right to keep "such an instrument" indicate
> that consideration of the weapon was taken in the abstract, and
> therefore, 'possession or use' of such an instrument was also an
> abstraction.
>
>RR: You'll have to clarify your meaning of abstract.
>If you mean apart from other types of weapons, then you might
>be implying that the Miller decision only applied to short
>barrelled shotguns. From this, however, you leap to the
>conclusion that "possession or use" would only apply to
>short barrelled shotguns too.
> If this is your thinking, it's an incredible stretch.
RSB: Abstract; theoretical rather than practical; thought of apart
from any particular instances or material objects. The issue was
whether the court can or cannot say that the 2dAm guarantees the right
to keep and bear such an instrument. That is an abstract consideration
removed from the individual's specific weapon and unrelated to the
individual possession or use of a particular material object. The
Miller court considered the issue in the abstract sense for
application to a specific case, whereas you attempt to limit the area
of consideration and extrapolate from the specific to the general
case. The 2dAm guarantees an individual right based on group
consideration, whereas you pervert it to a group right based on
individual consideration.
>RSB: One cannot view the Miller court's abstract stance
> regarding possession, plus the issue under consideration being whether
> the right to keep the type of weapon (not the manner of possession)
> was protected by the 2dAm, plus consideration of their loose standard
> for evidence, and reasonably jump to the conclusion that "that one
> must use or possess the weapon in such a manner as to help out a
> well-regulated militia."
>
>RR: Well you could have fooled me, seeing as that's almost exactly
>what the Miller court says.
RSB: Apparently, you have fooled yourself. The small change you added
to what the court said has greatly changed the meaning.
>RSB: Throughout that entire process, no speaker or commentator,
> pro or con, referred to the term "the people" as a limitation.
>
>RR: There was debate, I believe, about excluding conscientious
>objectors from "the people," but the inclusion was not made.
>Also, you might note that no one in Congress declared the right
>to be for non military uses, either.
RSB: There was discussion about exempting CO's from compulsory militia
service; none about excluding them from the right to keep arms.
>RSB: the court references an example (quoted but not
> cited) of militia who were enrolled, does not make enrollment a
> definitive requirement for militia.
>
>RR: Well, seeing as how the Miller court did not quote any
>example of a militia-person who was not enrolled, the only
>conclusion one can reach is that it meant for militia duty
>to encompass enrollment.
RSB: A different conclusion one can reach is that the issue of
enrollment was inconsequential to the Miller court and did not warrant
a detailed examination. Certainly Miller's enrollment status in the
militia was not thought relevant to include any comment whatsoever.
>RSB: Consider the Miller decision's
> final three examples of colonial militia in state legislation passed
> under the Articles of Confederation:
> General Court of Massachusetts, January 1784. The Train
> Band should contain all able bodied men ... and the Alarm
> List all other men.
>
> New York Legislature, April 1786. That every able-bodied
> Male Person be enrolled ...in the Company of such Beat.
>
> General Assembly of Virginia, October 1785. All free male
> persons shall be inrolled or formed into companies.
>
>RR: Your first example is clearly use an organizational outline.
>The able-bodied men still would have to enroll, or how else
>could they be counted, trained or even told where to
>stand?
RSB: But would they have to enroll for this? Perhaps, but the court
seemingly considers the issue to be inconsequential, judging from the
depth of their comment. According to the Miller court's example, much
was left to the judgement of the Selectmen of the town in which the
members of the militia dwelt. It could be that Massachusetts militia
were enrolled in the same manner as Title 10 enrolls members in the
unorganized component of the militia of the United States today.
Ray
Robert S. Baron wrote:
> > RSB: The supreme court clarified the signification attributed to the
> > term militia as an abstract concept idealized after the best of the
> > colonial militia at the time.
> >
> >RR: Please cite the relevant passages from the Supreme Court for
> >"abstract concept idealized"
>
> RSB: Have you ever questioned why the Miller court made no reference
> to any federal legislation touching the militia? The answer will also
> explain the signification attributed to the term militia. Yet it is
> appallingly evident that you are unwilling to accept the obvious
> answer. The Miller court did not consider federal legislation to have
> any significant contribution to understanding the militia of the 2dAm,
> instead drawing their signification from colonial sources; hence,
> their understanding was of colonial militia. Certainly this was an
> abstract concept for the Miller court, since any militia patterned
> after colonial sources had long been discontinued by 1939. It would
> also explain the court's concern to assure the continuation of such
> forces should that ever be necessary. One may consider such forces to
> be idealized; what could be more ideal than 'well regulated Militia'?
RR: The general thrust of your comment appears to narrow the scope of
the Miller court's definition of the militia in order that you might
define the court's "continuation" as a "resumption" rather than as
the carrying forth of something already in existence.
You narrow the scope by saying the Miller Court only referenced
a Colonial militia. Thus, you say, when the court ruled "With obvious
purpose to assure the 'continuation' and render possible the
effectiveness of such forces..." you believe the court meant those
forces to be an idealized colonial form of militia that had never
existed in the United States.
But this is wrong. The Miller court makes several post-colonial
references to the militia. It refers to laws passed in New York and
Virginia in 1786 and 1785, laws which have almost the exact
same language that will appear in the Uniform Militia Act of 1792.
Miller also makes reference to the Constitutional militia (also
post-colonial). It says "The militia which the States were expected
to maintain and train is set in contrast with troops which they were
forbidden to keep without the consent of congress."
And most telling, the court (immediately prior to its 'continuation
of such forces' sentence), describes these "forces" as those of the
militia in Art. I Sec. 8, not the militia of colonial days.
However, now that I know what you meant by "idealized," I will
agree with you on that point. In dicta, the Miller court was
describing militia organizations that had long passed from the
American scene, whether they were colonial or post-colonial.
I am convinced the court did this for political reasons.
It did not want to stir up a hornet's nest over the 2nd Amendment.
At the same time it did not want to let the 2nd Amendment
invalidate the NFA 1934.
What it did, therefore, was set a triple standard (more on that
later) for the RKBA, but then use the least controversial aspect
of that standard to re-instate Miller's indictment.
And it used it's dicta as 'historical cover', using
militia quotations from prior centuries that are often used by
pro-gun advocates. By emphasizing these historical references,
the court could placate pro-gunners with their own soothing words,
while at the same time setting up a standard which forevermore
tied the rights of gun-owners to a militia that hadn't existed
even on paper for 40 years, and which the court knew would never
exist again. More on this later.
> RSB: Aside from the fact that the Miller court did not consider the
> UMA of 1792 relevant to their view of 2dAm militia,
RR: Perhaps the briefs never referenced the UMA of 1792. But you cannot
say the court did not consider it's substance, since it cited two
state laws which were virtual copy cats of UMA 1792.
> RSB: Perhaps you can explain just what it was that Congress was
> 'enforcing'? Did the 1792 legislation attempt to achieve any purpose
> other than some degree of uniformity among the militia which the
> states were expected to maintain and train?
RR: The UMA 1792 attempted to 'force' into reality the idealized
republican concept of a universal militia. It didn't work.
> RSB: Certainly there is no
> need to force citizens to purchase their own arms in order to
> guarantee the right of the people to possess ordinary military
> equipment; all that is actually necessary is to not infringe the
> right. Just say no.
RR: This is the gun advocate position, but it is wrong. Much as
gunners try to ignore it, the UMA 1792 clearly describes what the
founding fathers meant by the 2nd Amendment. It meant for ALL
able bodied men to enroll for military discipline in state-run
militias. This was the republican concept popular at the time.
If ALL male citizens were militarized, then no standing army could
tyrannize them.
The 2nd Amendment restricts Congress from confiscating
the guns of this trained citizen militia. The UMA 1792 describes
what this militia is, and how it works.
Thus, the founding fathers would not have agreed with you that
"all that is actually necessary is to not infringe the right."
If they had agreed, there would have been no need to pass the UMA 1792.
RR> > And you are absolutely slaughtered by the court's use of
> >"or" between possession & use. This separates the decision
> >from Aymette by requiring that either one of those actions aid
> >a well-regulated militia.
> > Since we have already determined that you cannot "use" the
> >weapon for such a purpose unless war breaks out, that means
> >that you must show that your mere possession of a gun
> >aids a well-regulated (not "idealized") militia.
> > I have not seen a convincing argument that a bazooka or
> >a Glock in the basement of non-militia civilians does any
> >such thing.
>
> RSB: Nevertheless, possession of such an instrument would render
> possible the effectiveness of such forces. Certainly the subsequent
> statement by the court clarifies that ordinary military equipment, or
> any weapon whose use could contribute to the common defense, would
> motivate them to say that the 2dAm guarantees the right to keep and
> bear such an instrument.
RR: The Miller Court never says that non-militia citizens can contribute
to the common defense. Nor does it say that a military weapon owned
by a non-militia citizen contributes to the common defense. The court's
only reference for this is the Tennessee Supreme Court's Aymette case,
which ruled that a citizen has no right to carry even a military weapon
(under that state's constitution) unless it was for the purpose of the
common defense.
In Aymette's day, all citizens were still under the UMA of 1792 and
thus considered to be in a trained militia.
That is why the Tennessee court did not need to address the military
status of the defendant. He was by law a member of a well regulated
militia.
The Miller court didn't have to address the military aspect of Jack
Miller either, but it wasn't because Miller was assumed to be in the
militia. It was because the court could make it's decision about Jack
Miller without delving into his background. It could make its decision
based on his gun alone. If the gun had been ruled to be military-style,
I'm sure Jack Miller's militia status would have come up next.
Why am I sure? It's evident from the same dicta in the Miller case
that you are reading. The dicta doesn't just talk about the weapons.
It talks about the people. It says the Militia are "civilians
primarily, soldiers on occasion." It says the Militia in the early
US comprised "all males physically capable of acting in concert for
the common defense." It refers to "a body of citizens enrolled
for military discipline."
All of these attributes of the early militiaman could, and would,
have been used to judge Jack Miller, had it been needed. In fact,
had Jack Miller been part of a well-regulated militia, and had he
been present in court, he might have provided enough proof to win his
case. He might have shown that his mere "possession or use" of his
shotgun DID help his militia.
Even if the court had no prior evidence the shotgun had been used
in war, Jack's very possession of it in a militia context would have
been enough. That's because the court's standard was "possession or
use" of a gun in a militia context (not just the gun itself).
> >RSB:The court's reference to the weapon by description of a type of gun
> > and to protection of the right to keep "such an instrument" indicate
> > that consideration of the weapon was taken in the abstract, and
> > therefore, 'possession or use' of such an instrument was also an
> > abstraction.
> RSB: Abstract; theoretical rather than practical; thought of apart
> from any particular instances or material objects. The issue was
> whether the court can or cannot say that the 2dAm guarantees the right
> to keep and bear such an instrument. That is an abstract consideration
> removed from the individual's specific weapon and unrelated to the
> individual possession or use of a particular material object. The
> Miller court considered the issue in the abstract sense for
> application to a specific case, whereas you attempt to limit the area
> of consideration and extrapolate from the specific to the general
> case.
RR: I don't think I've done that at all. If you do, please provide
an example.
But I'm glad you brought up the "abstract" nature of the decision.
It allows us to get past all that "barrel of less than 18 inches"
crap and strip the decision down to its "abstract" elements.
Supreme Court decisions are always deductive because
they must start from the premise of the Constitution. The premises
interpreted by the Miller Court were that the 2nd Amendment's
RKBA depends on a) Possession or use of an (abstract gun) having a
reasonable relationship to... a well regulated militia b) The
abstract weapon being part of the ordinary military equipment or
capable of being used for the common defense and c) Assuring the
continuation and effectiveness of the forces described in Art.I Sec.8.
This was the Triple Standard I mentioned earlier, and the Miller
court made its decision based on premise (b), the least controverial
of the three. But that does not mean that it's other two premises
are invalid. In fact, numerous appellate courts have used the other
two Miller premises repeatedly since 1939 to make their rulings.
> >RSB: the court references an example (quoted but not
> > cited) of militia who were enrolled, does not make enrollment a
> > definitive requirement for militia.
> >
> >RR: Well, seeing as how the Miller court did not quote any
> >example of a militia-person who was not enrolled, the only
> >conclusion one can reach is that it meant for militia duty
> >to encompass enrollment.
>
> RSB: A different conclusion one can reach is that the issue of
> enrollment was inconsequential to the Miller court and did not warrant
> a detailed examination. Certainly Miller's enrollment status in the
> militia was not thought relevant to include any comment whatsoever.
RR: Your attempt to diminish the importance of "enrollment" in a militia
is surprising, and in error. You say the court only referenced "an
example" quoted out of context for enrollment. But in fact, the
court referenced THREE examples, two of them fully quoted. Your
comment is surprising, because you yourself quoted two of the
references in your last post. Here are all three:
1) "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline"
2) "That every able-bodied Male Person.... be enrolled in the
Company of such a beat...that every Citizens so enrolled and notified
shall within three months thereafter, provide himself at his own
expense with a good Musket or Firelock..."
3) "All free male persons.... shall be inrolled or formed into
companies"
It's quite clear that the Miller court felt enrollment was a
keystone of participating in even its "idealized" militia.
You have also given us a 1784 Massachusetts law about a
Train Band. But this quote is obviously incomplete. The court
says the law pertains to the organization and government of the
Militia, then skips ahead to the organization of the Train Band
without telling us what the organization of the militia is.
As with New York and Virginia, I'll bet you had to enroll
in the Massachusetts militia too. The Train Band was just
an elite element of the overall militia. You didn't find any
wording of the Train Band enrolling, because they'd already been
enrolled.
>RSB It could be that Massachusetts militia
> were enrolled in the same manner as Title 10 enrolls members in the
> unorganized component of the militia of the United States today.
RR: It could be that pigs fly. But the evidence is otherwise. Now,
let's get back to Jack Miller. Per the Miller court's Aymette
reference, poor Jack would have had to be fighting for the "common
defense" when he transported his shotgun across state lines.
Since he obviously was not... that alone would have been
sufficient to indict him.
Had Jack been caught with his shotgun in his home, the Aymette
court (in 1840) would not have charged him with anything, assuming
that Jack (like all 1840s citizens) was part of a well regulated
militia. But the Miller court could not make such an assumption
in 1939. So it had to go farther... it said that one's use or
possession of a gun had to reasonably benefit a well-regulated
militia.
Jack would have been caught on that indictment too. So
even if poor Jack had lived to face the bench, and had proven
his shotgun was military, he would have faced another indictment
on possession or use.
No wonder his partner pled guilty.
Joe Sylvester
In article <336CAC...@interaccess.com>, ki...@interaccess.com says...
>
>RR: This is the gun advocate position, but it is wrong. Much as
>gunners try to ignore it, the UMA 1792 clearly describes what the
>founding fathers meant by the 2nd Amendment. It meant for ALL
>able bodied men to enroll for military discipline in state-run
>militias. This was the republican concept popular at the time.
>If ALL male citizens were militarized, then no standing army could
>tyrannize them.
> The 2nd Amendment restricts Congress from confiscating
>the guns of this trained citizen militia. The UMA 1792 describes
>what this militia is, and how it works.
> Thus, the founding fathers would not have agreed with you that
>"all that is actually necessary is to not infringe the right."
>If they had agreed, there would have been no need to pass the UMA 1792.
The UMA of 1792 showed what Congress thought was meant by the following
portion of Art. I sec 8 of the Constitution:
(Congress shall have the power to:)
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for
governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers,
and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;
>RR: The Miller Court never says that non-militia citizens can contribute
>to the common defense. Nor does it say that a military weapon owned
>by a non-militia citizen contributes to the common defense. The court's
>only reference for this is the Tennessee Supreme Court's Aymette case,
>which ruled that a citizen has no right to carry even a military weapon
>(under that state's constitution) unless it was for the purpose of the
>common defense.
Actually Aymette pretty much says what the Miller court said, that only
weapons that could contribute to the common defese were protected." They need
not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed
in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and
the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not
be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens.
The right to keep and bear them is not, therefore, secured by the
constitution.such weapons as were used in private disputes."
Of course the Tennesse Constitution *does* include the phrase "for the common
defense", while the second amendment does not. Such wording was expressly
rejected by vote in the first Congress.
--
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 !
Robert S. Baron
RSB: That is merely a semantic argument. If you are overly agitated
by the choice of the term 'colonial' to characterize militia prior to
the emergence of federally organized militia in 1792, then you may
substitute another descriptive term such as 'Pre-Federal Era' (PFE).
It will change nothing.
> Miller also makes reference to the Constitutional militia (also
>post-colonial). It says "The militia which the States were expected
>to maintain and train is set in contrast with troops which they were
>forbidden to keep without the consent of congress."
RSB: But what follows is the 'signification attributed to the term
Militia' that was drawn from colonial (or if you prefer, PFE) sources.
The states had an expectation that the militia which they were to
maintain would be patterned after the colonial militia existing at the
time the 2dAm was ratified in 1791.
> And most telling, the court (immediately prior to its 'continuation
>of such forces' sentence), describes these "forces" as those of the
>militia in Art. I Sec. 8, not the militia of colonial days.
RSB: Even I once made this same mistake. Your textual analysis
appears to have merit on the surface, but breaks down on realizing the
purpose for the declaration of the 2dAm. The problem the states had
with federally organized militia was the lack of assurance that
Congress would in fact provide for militia according to the prevailing
colonial (or PFE) concepts at the time. But there is no assurance
that Art.I Sec.8 militia will be the same militia declared necessary
in the 2dAm. The Miller court referenced no federal legislation
arising from Art.I Sec.8 militia powers, because the Art.I Sec.8
militia has no bearing on the militia that is declared to be necessary
by the 2dAm. The continuation of 'such forces' can only refer to
militia aligned with the 'signification attributed to the term
militia' which was drawn from colonial sources. To do otherwise would
render the 2dAm meaningless. And we can't have that.
> However, now that I know what you meant by "idealized," I will
>agree with you on that point. In dicta, the Miller court was
>describing militia organizations that had long passed from the
>American scene, whether they were colonial or post-colonial.
> I am convinced the court did this for political reasons.
>It did not want to stir up a hornet's nest over the 2nd Amendment.
>At the same time it did not want to let the 2nd Amendment
>invalidate the NFA 1934.
> What it did, therefore, was set a triple standard (more on that
>later) for the RKBA, but then use the least controversial aspect
>of that standard to re-instate Miller's indictment.
> And it used it's dicta as 'historical cover', using
>militia quotations from prior centuries that are often used by
>pro-gun advocates. By emphasizing these historical references,
>the court could placate pro-gunners with their own soothing words,
>while at the same time setting up a standard which forevermore
>tied the rights of gun-owners to a militia that hadn't existed
>even on paper for 40 years, and which the court knew would never
>exist again. More on this later.
>
>> RSB: Aside from the fact that the Miller court did not consider the
>> UMA of 1792 relevant to their view of 2dAm militia,
>
>RR: Perhaps the briefs never referenced the UMA of 1792. But you cannot
>say the court did not consider it's substance, since it cited two
>state laws which were virtual copy cats of UMA 1792.
RSB: This just tries to evade the issue. The court did not view any
federal legislation concerning the militia to be relevant to
interpretation of the 2dAm.
>RR: The UMA 1792 attempted to 'force' into reality the idealized
>republican concept of a universal militia. It didn't work.
RSB: But it was an admirable goal. And still is. The Miller court
interpreted the declaration of the 2dAm to have the obvious purpose to
assure the continuation of idealized colonial militia (which in 1939
would have to mean "starting again after ceasing".)
>> RSB: Certainly there is no
>> need to force citizens to purchase their own arms in order to
>> guarantee the right of the people to possess ordinary military
>> equipment; all that is actually necessary is to not infringe the
>> right. Just say no.
>
>RR: This is the gun advocate position, but it is wrong. Much as
>gunners try to ignore it, the UMA 1792 clearly describes what the
>founding fathers meant by the 2nd Amendment. It meant for ALL
>able bodied men to enroll for military discipline in state-run
>militias. This was the republican concept popular at the time.
>If ALL male citizens were militarized, then no standing army could
>tyrannize them.
> The 2nd Amendment restricts Congress from confiscating
>the guns of this trained citizen militia. The UMA 1792 describes
>what this militia is, and how it works.
> Thus, the founding fathers would not have agreed with you that
>"all that is actually necessary is to not infringe the right."
>If they had agreed, there would have been no need to pass the UMA 1792.
RSB: Not true; from the states' point of view there never was a 'need'
for the UMA. Each state already had their own provisions for militia;
the UMA was a federal concern to impose uniformity among the states.
The 2dAm was a state concern to assure the continuation of such
forces; and a concern of the people that any government official sworn
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States shall
never infringe their right to keep and bear arms.
I ask you - Does the government enforce freedom of speech by forcing
people to make speeches? Does the government enforce freedom of the
press by requiring people to own a printing press?
>RR: The Miller Court never says that non-militia citizens can contribute
>to the common defense.
RSB: Yet it is obvious that they can.
>Nor does it say that a military weapon owned
>by a non-militia citizen contributes to the common defense.
RSB: Yet it is obvious that it could.
>The court's
>only reference for this is the Tennessee Supreme Court's Aymette case,
>which ruled that a citizen has no right to carry even a military weapon
>(under that state's constitution) unless it was for the purpose of the
>common defense.
> In Aymette's day, all citizens were still under the UMA of 1792 and
>thus considered to be in a trained militia.
> That is why the Tennessee court did not need to address the military
>status of the defendant. He was by law a member of a well regulated
>militia.
RSB: Anyone who has read Aymette would recognize your assertion as
patently ridiculous. You claim the defendant was trained militia,
therefore the court had no need to examine his militia status for
RKBA. However, in 1840 the federal Bill of Rights was not considered
to be applicable to the states, and the Tennessee constitution had no
militia context with respect to RKBA. The militia itself was not an
issue in Aymette, therefore the court had no need to examine the
defendant's militia status for RKBA. Relevant quote from Aymette:
In the 1st article of the constitution of this State,
containing a declaration of rights, sec. 26, it is declared
"that the free white men of this State have a right to keep
and bear arms for their common defence."
> The Miller court didn't have to address the military aspect of Jack
>Miller either, but it wasn't because Miller was assumed to be in the
>militia. It was because the court could make it's decision about Jack
>Miller without delving into his background. It could make its decision
>based on his gun alone. If the gun had been ruled to be military-style,
>I'm sure Jack Miller's militia status would have come up next.
> Why am I sure? It's evident from the same dicta in the Miller case
>that you are reading. The dicta doesn't just talk about the weapons.
>It talks about the people.
RSB: Wrong again! The Miller court discusses members of the militia,
but says nothing about 'the people' except for quoting the guarantee
of the 2dAm. This is just another lame attempt to equate 'the people'
with active militia.
> It says the Militia are "civilians
>primarily, soldiers on occasion." It says the Militia in the early
>US comprised "all males physically capable of acting in concert for
>the common defense." It refers to "a body of citizens enrolled
>for military discipline."
> All of these attributes of the early militiaman could, and would,
>have been used to judge Jack Miller, had it been needed. In fact,
>had Jack Miller been part of a well-regulated militia, and had he
>been present in court, he might have provided enough proof to win his
>case. He might have shown that his mere "possession or use" of his
>shotgun DID help his militia.
> Even if the court had no prior evidence the shotgun had been used
>in war, Jack's very possession of it in a militia context would have
>been enough. That's because the court's standard was "possession or
>use" of a gun in a militia context (not just the gun itself).
RSB: Some of what you have said here it true, but is woefully
misdirected. Peer too closely at the phrase 'possession or use' and
risk losing sight of the court's end purpose for such consideration.
The standard set by the court was to examine if possession or use of
<abstract description of weapon> could have a reasonable militia
context, in order to say whether the 2dAm protects the right of the
people to keep and bear such an instrument. It is a gross fabrication
to claim that the people have the right to keep arms only in a militia
context.
>> >RSB:The court's reference to the weapon by description of a type of gun
>> > and to protection of the right to keep "such an instrument" indicate
>> > that consideration of the weapon was taken in the abstract, and
>> > therefore, 'possession or use' of such an instrument was also an
>> > abstraction.
>> RSB: Abstract; theoretical rather than practical; thought of apart
>> from any particular instances or material objects. The issue was
>> whether the court can or cannot say that the 2dAm guarantees the right
>> to keep and bear such an instrument. That is an abstract consideration
>> removed from the individual's specific weapon and unrelated to the
>> individual possession or use of a particular material object. The
>> Miller court considered the issue in the abstract sense for
>> application to a specific case, whereas you attempt to limit the area
>> of consideration and extrapolate from the specific to the general
>> case.
>
>RR: I don't think I've done that at all. If you do, please provide
>an example.
> But I'm glad you brought up the "abstract" nature of the decision.
>It allows us to get past all that "barrel of less than 18 inches"
>crap and strip the decision down to its "abstract" elements.
> Supreme Court decisions are always deductive because
>they must start from the premise of the Constitution. The premises
>interpreted by the Miller Court were that the 2nd Amendment's
>RKBA depends on
RSB: Now here is the subtle modification where you try slipping it to
us. It is false that the right depends on the triple standard; your
contention otherwise is totally unsupported by the facts. What
actually depends of the stated criteria was the court's ability to
invoke the 2dAm guarantee for such an instrument. You are further in
error to imply that it is a triple standard to affirm the right, when
it is clearly a triple standard to deny the right. The Miller court
established three possible avenues by which the right to keep and bear
<abstract description of weapon> would be guaranteed, and showed that
such an instrument failed to satisfy all three criteria, at least
within the cursory level of judicial notice.
> a) Possession or use of an (abstract gun) having a
>reasonable relationship to... a well regulated militia b) The
>abstract weapon being part of the ordinary military equipment or
>capable of being used for the common defense and c) Assuring the
>continuation and effectiveness of the forces described in Art.I Sec.8.
> This was the Triple Standard I mentioned earlier, and the Miller
>court made its decision based on premise (b), the least controverial
>of the three. But that does not mean that it's other two premises
>are invalid. In fact, numerous appellate courts have used the other
>two Miller premises repeatedly since 1939 to make their rulings.
RSB: The inferior federal courts have made the same errors as you
in applying supreme court decisions. They will soon be corrected.
RSB: Yeah, and it could also be that pigs enroll. But the fact that
the court ignored what you claim is a clear example of enrollment just
reinforces the notion that the court views enrollment as
characteristic but not definitive of militia.
>>RSB It could be that Massachusetts militia
>> were enrolled in the same manner as Title 10 enrolls members in the
>> unorganized component of the militia of the United States today.
>
>RR: It could be that pigs fly. But the evidence is otherwise. Now,
>let's get back to Jack Miller. Per the Miller court's Aymette
>reference, poor Jack would have had to be fighting for the "common
>defense" when he transported his shotgun across state lines.
> Since he obviously was not... that alone would have been
>sufficient to indict him.
> Had Jack been caught with his shotgun in his home, the Aymette
>court (in 1840) would not have charged him with anything, assuming
>that Jack (like all 1840s citizens) was part of a well regulated
>militia. But the Miller court could not make such an assumption
>in 1939. So it had to go farther... it said that one's use or
>possession of a gun had to reasonably benefit a well-regulated
>militia.
RSB: You proffer an unreliable explanation. The court said no such
thing concerning "one's possession or use..." The court did say the
2dAm guarantee for such an instrument depended on showing a tendency
that <abstract description of weapon> could have an unspecified but
reasonable militia context.
> Jack would have been caught on that indictment too. So
>even if poor Jack had lived to face the bench, and had proven
>his shotgun was military, he would have faced another indictment
>on possession or use.
> No wonder his partner pled guilty.
RSB: Apparently you prefer to fabricate your argument based on
speculation regarding what the court might have decided about
actions not taken by the defendant in circumstances that never
happened. I've got your number.
SOCINUS2
>RR: This is the gun advocate position, but it is wrong. Much as
>gunners try to ignore it, the UMA 1792 clearly describes what the
>founding fathers meant by the 2nd Amendment. It meant for ALL
>able bodied men to enroll for military discipline in state-run
>militias. This was the republican concept popular at the time.
>If ALL male citizens were militarized, then no standing army could
>tyrannize them.
> The 2nd Amendment restricts Congress from confiscating
>the guns of this trained citizen militia.
pot-bellied beer-guzzler with a hunting rifle defennding
me against an F-16 deployed by a standing
army supported by your taxes :) I suggest, Joe, that
you realize, that many of the concepts of our Founding
Fathers, like 'we the people' just referring to white males,
are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
a free nation having an armed populace. Good that the
SC in US v. Miller, is made of men who have learned
from US history, and not just been passed by like you,
Joe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be
thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.
H.L. Mencken
Joe Sylvester
In article <19970521170...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, soci...@aol.com
says...
>
> I cannot get much comfort, Joe, from the image of a
>pot-bellied beer-guzzler with a hunting rifle defennding
>me against an F-16 deployed by a standing
If the second amendment were truly followed, why would this notional
militiaman be armed with a *hunting* rifle. In any case, the small arms would
be used to get something more appropriate, like a stinger, ask the Afghans
about that. In no case would I advocate going against an F-16 with a hunting
rifle, except perhaps from the end of the runway, or off in the bushes near
the flight line.
>army supported by your taxes :) I suggest, Joe, that
>you realize, that many of the concepts of our Founding
>Fathers, like 'we the people' just referring to white males,
>are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
>a free nation having an armed populace. Good that the
>SC in US v. Miller, is made of men who have learned
>from US history, and not just been passed by like you,
The courts have no power to change the Constitution, only the Congress and the
State legislatures, or a convention called by the states along with those same
state legislatures can do that. I seem to remember this procedure being
followed in the cases you cite (white and male) see the 13, 14th, and 19th
amendments.
--
The Second Amendment is the RESET button
of the United States Constitution.
---Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Joe Sylvester
Captain, USAFR(ret)
Lone_Wolf
In <5m02vs$g9t$2...@nadine.teleport.com> spammers.die!@no.such.ISP.com (apriori) writes:
#In article <19970521170...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) wrote:
#> I cannot get much comfort, Joe, from the image of a
#>pot-bellied beer-guzzler with a hunting rifle defennding
#>me against an F-16 deployed by a standing
#>army supported by your taxes :)
#But since this scenario is too astronimocally remote to be of any value to a
#discussion on the desirability of private ownership of firearms, let's just
#forget about it, shall we...?
#BTW, what on earth makes you think that in any _legitimate_ scenario of
#revolution in this country (that is, a scenario in which a large enough
#segment of the population - not just a few crackpots in the Texas hills -
#finds armed resistance to the government necesary) that that standing army
#would remain intact? There is no reason to think that that army would nt
#align itself on _either_ sde of the struggle, in numbers roughly matching tha
#of the population in general.
#Sure, a few dimwits with their hunting rifles wouldn't stand much of a chance
#against a modern military force...but that's not what anyone but you is
#talking about.
#>I suggest, Joe, that
#>you realize, that many of the concepts of our Founding
#>Fathers, like 'we the people' just referring to white males,
#>are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
#>a free nation having an armed populace.
#Then doubtless you can demonstrate just _why_ the latter concept isn't
#'applicable'...
#David Anderson
Socinus has been around here long enough to know that anybody who tries to
fight an insurgency action using conventional tactics has screwed themselves
royally. But that F16 doesn't do much good if the pilot has his brains
splattered out as he leaves his mistress' house. The government can get new
planes fairly quickly, it takes longer to train the pilots and for them to
get enough experience to be worth much. A tank is a wonderful weapons system,
but I've never seen an American one with a latrine and a kitchen, or someplace
to sleep. Modern military hardware is fairly dependant on trained, experienced
operators, and fairly expensive maintenance facilities. A bucket of nails
in the middle of a runway can really screw up a squadron of F15's through
FOD (Foreign Object Damage). Those engines are nice and powerful, and will
suck those nails right down, trashing the entire engine, and possibly the
plane, if disintegrating fan blades cut the wrong stuff.
Radical ideas? Not really, any military planner with half a brain knows these
factors, which is why counterinsurgency work is considered one of the most
difficult challenges to face. You also have to consider that one of the groups
considered MOST likely to be disaffected with our current government and
governmental abuses is those the government itself has trained, and one of the
biggest subgroups is those the government trained in insurgency. John Rambo
was fiction, but most people missed a large part of the movie: He didn't go
nuts and blow up a town for the hell of it, he blew it up after the Sheriff
violated his Constitutional rights, they roughed him up in the jail, shot at
him, chased him with the National Guard, etc... I've known a REAL Special
Forces A-Team that moved from North Alabama to the coast on foot, with law
enforcement and military personnel looking for them, undetected. And you
should see some of the (illegal) weaponry these guys will come up with in their
spare time, just to try out new ideas... One idea was converting a lever action
to automatic (had to weld on a gas tube, amongst other modifications).
Explosives? A week after a Special Forces team changes barracks, a lot of holes
are found near their old barracks, where their stashes were previously located.
Hell, I personally know a NON-Special Forces NCO who managed to smuggle an RPG
back from Saudi, a friend went in on a raid near Ft. Bragg where they recovered
a Soviet recoilless rifle with AP ammo that came back from Saudi. Iraqi AK's
are fairly common as illicit souvineers from Iraq, the Army has run a series of
amnesty periods to encourage troops to turn them in.
But Socinus is stuck with two fallacies: That the military would completely
oppose a revolution or insurgency and that the US military is invincible.
As an Army brat, former ROTC cadet, and International Affairs graduate, I
think he's wrong on both counts, especially with the current White House.
ONLY discipline and honor prevent military officers from speaking out en masse
about what they think of the current Commander in Chief, and even then an
AF General had to retire after making comments about him, and the military
had to issue a reminder that disparaging the Commander in Chief is a court
martial offense.
James
apriori
> I cannot get much comfort, Joe, from the image of a
>pot-bellied beer-guzzler with a hunting rifle defennding
>me against an F-16 deployed by a standing
>army supported by your taxes :)
But since this scenario is too astronimocally remote to be of any value to a
discussion on the desirability of private ownership of firearms, let's just
forget about it, shall we...?
BTW, what on earth makes you think that in any _legitimate_ scenario of
revolution in this country (that is, a scenario in which a large enough
segment of the population - not just a few crackpots in the Texas hills -
finds armed resistance to the government necesary) that that standing army
would remain intact? There is no reason to think that that army would nt
align itself on _either_ sde of the struggle, in numbers roughly matching tha
of the population in general.
Sure, a few dimwits with their hunting rifles wouldn't stand much of a chance
against a modern military force...but that's not what anyone but you is
talking about.
>I suggest, Joe, that
>you realize, that many of the concepts of our Founding
>Fathers, like 'we the people' just referring to white males,
>are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
>a free nation having an armed populace.
Then doubtless you can demonstrate just _why_ the latter concept isn't
'applicable'...
David Anderson
David Golden
I hate to break the news to you, but a regular ol' over-sized militia with
mostly light weaponry just steam-rolled over the standing army of Zaire.
Did you notice how much of a fight the professional army puts up? And
I think you can assume they had a few fighter-bomber planes, tanks,
and artillery at the government's disposal....
SOCINUS2 (soci...@aol.com) wrote:
: >RR: This is the gun advocate position, but it is wrong. Much as
: >gunners try to ignore it, the UMA 1792 clearly describes what the
: >founding fathers meant by the 2nd Amendment. It meant for ALL
: >able bodied men to enroll for military discipline in state-run
: >militias. This was the republican concept popular at the time.
: >If ALL male citizens were militarized, then no standing army could
: >tyrannize them.
: > The 2nd Amendment restricts Congress from confiscating
: >the guns of this trained citizen militia.
:
: I cannot get much comfort, Joe, from the image of a
: pot-bellied beer-guzzler with a hunting rifle defennding
: me against an F-16 deployed by a standing
: army supported by your taxes :) I suggest, Joe, that
: you realize, that many of the concepts of our Founding
: Fathers, like 'we the people' just referring to white males,
: are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
: a free nation having an armed populace. Good that the
: SC in US v. Miller, is made of men who have learned
: from US history, and not just been passed by like you,
: Joe.
SOCINUS2
#>I suggest, Joe, that
#>you realize, that many of the concepts of our Founding
#>Fathers, like 'we the people' just referring to white males,
#>are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
#>a free nation having an armed populace.
#Then doubtless you can demonstrate just _why_ the latter concept isn't
#'applicable'...
#David Anderson
David, Thomas Jefferson, though a champion of many liberties, was a
slave owner. Such was made illegal by the 14th Amendment. I have
accepted that. Have you?
James F. Mayer
In <19970523201...@ladder01.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
>
>#>I suggest, Joe, that
>#>you realize, that many of the concepts of our Founding
>#>Fathers, like 'we the people' just referring to white males,
>#>are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
>#>a free nation having an armed populace.
>
>#Then doubtless you can demonstrate just _why_ the latter concept
isn't
>#'applicable'...
>
>#David Anderson
>
>David, Thomas Jefferson, though a champion of many liberties, was a
>slave owner. Such was made illegal by the 14th Amendment. I have
>accepted that. Have you?
Have you ever accepted that many of your arguments are wrong and
that you happen to display your ignorance like a badge?
Michael W. Moran
SOCINUS2 wrote:
>
> #>I suggest, Joe, that
> #>you realize, that many of the concepts of our Founding
> #>Fathers, like 'we the people' just referring to white males,
> #>are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
> #>a free nation having an armed populace.
>
> #Then doubtless you can demonstrate just _why_ the latter concept isn't
> #'applicable'...
>
> #David Anderson
>
> David, Thomas Jefferson, though a champion of many liberties, was a
> slave owner. Such was made illegal by the 14th Amendment. I have
> accepted that. Have you?
>
slave of a man when you have first disarmed him.
--
--------------------------------------------
-*** ADDRESS ALTERED AS SPAM VACCINE *** -
-To reply, change "die_spammer" to "mmoran"-
--------------------------------------------
Tapio Erola
In article <19970526185...@ladder01.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) writes:
(Cut)
A major difference between us is that I cannot support murder,
even when it supports my views.
Oh. Then you are an absolute pacifist? Oppose every war that has
ever happened? Would you just have filed a strong protest against
German treatment of certain racial groups during WW2?
And you guys want states to allow CCW?
I fail to see the relevance between CCW and murder. It is not
a license to kill, you know.
--
Tapio Erola t...@paju.oulu.fi (No mail to t...@sliver.oulu.fi please)
Speak softly, and carry a megawatt laser.
apriori
In article <19970523201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) wrote:
>
>#>I suggest, Joe, that
>#>you realize, that many of the concepts of our Founding
>#>Fathers, like 'we the people' just referring to white males,
>#>are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
>#>a free nation having an armed populace.
>
>#Then doubtless you can demonstrate just _why_ the latter concept isn't
>#'applicable'...
>
>#David Anderson
>
>David, Thomas Jefferson, though a champion of many liberties, was a
>slave owner. Such was made illegal by the 14th Amendment. I have
>accepted that. Have you?
this forum, I suppose nothing is obvious, huh?), I've no problem with the 14th
amendment.
But that does not have anthbing to do with the validity (or lack of such) of
the idea of an armed populace. The two are unrelated and the validity of the
former has no bearing on the validity of the latter. I was looking for a
defense of the asertion that an armed populace is undesirable.
David Anderson
SOCINUS2
RR: This is the gun advocate position, but it is wrong. Much as
>gunners try to ignore it, the UMA 1792 clearly describes what the
>founding fathers meant by the 2nd Amendment. It meant for ALL
>able bodied men to enroll for military discipline in state-run
>militias. This was the republican concept popular at the time.
>If ALL male citizens were militarized, then no standing army could
>tyrannize them.
Funny, I read the majority opinion in US v Miller, and didn't see that at
all. If the SC so clearly championed your interpretation of the 2ndAm,
don't you find Miller's loss troublesome?
SOCINUS2
>
>#Then doubtless you can demonstrate just _why_ the latter concept
isn't
>#'applicable'...
>
>#David Anderson
>
>David, Thomas Jefferson, though a champion of many liberties, was a
>slave owner. Such was made illegal by the 14th Amendment. I have
>accepted that. Have you?
Have you ever accepted that many of your arguments are wrong and
that you happen to display your ignorance like a badge?
Where is you reply to my question about Thomas Jefferson and
slavery. I don't judge him harshly, since he was such an outstanding
champion of many other liberties. David, how do you feel?
SOCINUS2
Er...that's the _former_ concept, not the latter one. Obviously (or,
well, in
this forum, I suppose nothing is obvious, huh?), I've no problem with the
14th
amendment.
But that does not have anthbing to do with the validity (or lack of such)
of
the idea of an armed populace. The two are unrelated and the validity of
the
former has no bearing on the validity of the latter. I was looking for a
defense of the asertion that an armed populace is undesirable.
The point, Joe, is that some concepts of many of our Founders,
like the concept of an armed populace resisting government
tyranny are not applicable today. The idea of some old beer-guzzler
in a camo jacket with a hunting rifle holding off a F-16 is ridiculous.
(maybe that's actually why many anti-government groups would like
individuals to be able to own Stinger missles)
James F. Mayer
In <19970524174...@ladder01.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
>RR: This is the gun advocate position, but it is wrong. Much as
>>gunners try to ignore it, the UMA 1792 clearly describes what the
>>founding fathers meant by the 2nd Amendment. It meant for ALL
>>able bodied men to enroll for military discipline in state-run
>>militias. This was the republican concept popular at the time.
>>If ALL male citizens were militarized, then no standing army could
>>tyrannize them.
>
>Funny, I read the majority opinion in US v Miller, and didn't see that
at
>all. If the SC so clearly championed your interpretation of the 2ndAm,
>don't you find Miller's loss troublesome?
Miller didn't lose and there are serious doubts about your reading
comprehension. Don't you find your interpretations troublesome because
they seem to fly in the face of reality? You don't seem to see
anything other than what you want to see. Show us where it state that
Miller lost the case.
SOCINUS2
Miller didn't lose and there are serious doubts about your reading
comprehension. Don't you find your interpretations troublesome because
they seem to fly in the face of reality? You don't seem to see
anything other than what you want to see. Show us where it state that
Miller lost the case.
You think he WON? If you'd bother to look up that case, you'd see that
Miller didn't even show up! I'd look it up for you, but I cannot see my
benefit from looking up cases for gun loons!
SOCINUS2
All it takes is one shot in the right place and that F16 ain't
worth nothing more than the scrap price of the metal it is made out of.
You are an uncommonly misinformed fool. Anyone who watches
"Wings" on the Discovery Channel knows that an F-16 is very
impervious to small arms fire! What scares me is that goons like
you are carrying lethal force around. I guess the NRA did have
some success. They bought off enough legislators to allow
goon like you to get CCW permits in most states!
James F. Mayer
In <19970524205...@ladder01.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
> All it takes is one shot in the right place and that F16 ain't
>worth nothing more than the scrap price of the metal it is made out
of.
>
>You are an uncommonly misinformed fool.
Ans we know what kind of misinformed fool you are and continue to
be.
Anyone who watches
>"Wings" on the Discovery Channel knows that an F-16 is very
>impervious to small arms fire!
I see that you have been educated by the weekly sitcoms. It is
most refreshing to know that your education is nothing more than sitcom
blather. I don't think so, as their skin is nothing more than thin
sheet aluminum not any more than .060 inches thick. Have you ever been
near one or is your closestet contact been through a television tube?
What scares me is that goons like
>you are carrying lethal force around.
What scares me about fools like you don't care about anything other
than your immediate self gratification in the currently politically
correct fashion.
I guess the NRA did have
>some success. They bought off enough legislators to allow
>goon like you to get CCW permits in most states!
I guess that you think that contributing to the campaigns of
those that don't agree with your views as "buying off enough
legislators" but when organizations that agree with your position it is
perfectly a reasonable way to forward your cause. I suppose you think
that two opposing groups that are using the same exact tactic, the one
you agree with it is a legitimate usage and the one you disagree with
it is not.
James F. Mayer
In <19970524202...@ladder01.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
> Miller didn't lose and there are serious doubts about your reading
>comprehension. Don't you find your interpretations troublesome
because
>they seem to fly in the face of reality? You don't seem to see
>anything other than what you want to see. Show us where it state that
>Miller lost the case.
>
>You think he WON?
I didn't say that, did I. He neither won nor lost because he was
DEAD.
If you'd bother to look up that case,
If you could read with out help from a gun control organization
holding your hand you might learn something.
you'd see that
>Miller didn't even show up!
Of course, he was DEAD and unless you believe in zombies, he
couldn't show up.
I'd look it up for you, but I cannot see my
>benefit from looking up cases for gun loons!
I have read the whole thing and the reason that Miller didn't show
up was because he was DEAD which seems to escape your marger
intellectual capabilities. I have my own copy, thank you and have read
it. I suggest that you go find one that hasn't been annotated by a gun
control organization.
I'd send you my copy but it wouldn't do you any good until you
learn reading comprehension from someone other than an HCI tutor.
I see that you have to resort to name calling because you have no
other defense for the facts and the truth.
Show us where, in the case, it says that Miller lost.
James F. Mayer
In <19970524180...@ladder01.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
>Er...that's the _former_ concept, not the latter one. Obviously (or,
>well, in
>this forum, I suppose nothing is obvious, huh?), I've no problem with
the
>14th
>amendment.
>
>But that does not have anthbing to do with the validity (or lack of
such)
>of
>the idea of an armed populace. The two are unrelated and the validity
of
>the
>former has no bearing on the validity of the latter. I was looking
for a
>defense of the asertion that an armed populace is undesirable.
>
>The point, Joe, is that some concepts of many of our Founders,
>like the concept of an armed populace resisting government
>tyranny are not applicable today.
What about tomorrow, next year, or next decade? You seem to care
about nothing but the here and now and have no concept of future needs.
are you saying that you would rather put up with government tyranny
than resist?
If the Supreme Court again decided that slavery was constitutional
would you support the enslavement of a portion of the citizenry even if
that portion included yourself? Would you condone having yourself sold
in the public market?
The idea of some old beer-guzzler
>in a camo jacket with a hunting rifle holding off a F-16 is
ridiculous.
All it takes is one shot in the right place and that F16 ain't
worth nothing more than the scrap price of the metal it is made out of.
This seems a little bit of over kill against one individual. I
think it would really tick off the neighbors if the military wiped out
whole blocks of houses to get one individual.
>(maybe that's actually why many anti-government groups would like
>individuals to be able to own Stinger missles)
So, resistance is futile, you will be assimilated whether you like
it or not. I think that a bunch of snot nosed, self centered brats
that would rather comform to whatever is politically correct than
demand that the governing body follow its own rules. You and your ilk
would just as soon have everyone slaves of the state rather than be
self reliant citizens.
Wraith
>In article <19970523201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) wrote:
>>
>>#>I suggest, Joe, that
>>#>you realize, that many of the concepts of our Founding
>>#>Fathers, like 'we the people' just referring to white males,
>>#>are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
>>#>a free nation having an armed populace.
>>
>>#Then doubtless you can demonstrate just _why_ the latter concept isn't
>>#'applicable'...
>>
>>#David Anderson
>>
>>David, Thomas Jefferson, though a champion of many liberties, was a
>>slave owner. Such was made illegal by the 14th Amendment. I have
>>accepted that. Have you?
>
>Er...that's the _former_ concept, not the latter one. Obviously (or, well, in
>this forum, I suppose nothing is obvious, huh?), I've no problem with the 14th
>amendment.
I've no real problem with the general concepts,but I DO have a problem
with how it has been SELECTIVELY applied by the SC. I also have
a problem with the history of its adoption,right after the Civil War.
I question the validity of Fed packed "legislatures" that resulted in
several of the Southern states,that passed it...
>But that does not have anthbing to do with the validity (or lack of such) of
>the idea of an armed populace. The two are unrelated and the validity of the
>former has no bearing on the validity of the latter. I was looking for a
>defense of the asertion that an armed populace is undesirable.
>
But course,an unarmed populance is desireable...You can manipulate,
coerce,and extort them to a much greater extent,than you can a
well armed,and informed citizenry...Which is one of the reasons,that
collectivists of all types frown upon an armed citizenry.
Eor on Crack
In <19970524174...@ladder01.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
>RR: This is the gun advocate position, but it is wrong. Much as
>>gunners try to ignore it, the UMA 1792 clearly describes what the
>>founding fathers meant by the 2nd Amendment. It meant for ALL
>>able bodied men to enroll for military discipline in state-run
>>militias. This was the republican concept popular at the time.
>>If ALL male citizens were militarized, then no standing army could
>>tyrannize them.
>
>Funny, I read the majority opinion in US v Miller, and didn't see that
at
>all. If the SC so clearly championed your interpretation of the 2ndAm,
>don't you find Miller's loss troublesome?
Then you have misread _Miller_. Notice how the opinion focused not on
the status of Miller himself but on the character of the weapon?
Mortalis
Eor on Crack
>Miller didn't even show up! I'd look it up for you, but I cannot see
my
>benefit from looking up cases for gun loons!
You poor sad bastard.
1. Back in the wonderful 1930's indigent criminal defendants were not
provided counsel on appeal. Hence, the government's argument was the
only one before the Supreme Court. Its called, FYI, a default
judgment. Arguendo that you're right (you're not), would you be
willing to hang your hat on a default judgment?
2. There were two defendants in _Miller_ - Miller and Layton. One of
them was dead at the time the case was before the Supreme Court. Can
you guess which one it was?
3. The issue before the Supreme Court in _Miller_ was whether the
district court should have, without any evidence being presented,
assumed (taken judicial notice) that a sawed off shotgun was a weapon
that could have been used by a militia. The Supreme Court ruled that
the district court, lacking any evidence, could have so ruled. The
Supreme Court sent the case back down for an evidentiary hearing on the
issue of whether militias would have a use for a sawed off shotgun.
Hint: sawed off shotguns were used by U.S. forces in WWI. They called
them "trench guns."
Mortalis
Eor on Crack
Will somebody ppplllleeeeaaaasssseeee teach this poor bastard how to
post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mortalis
In <19970524205...@ladder01.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
> All it takes is one shot in the right place and that F16 ain't
>worth nothing more than the scrap price of the metal it is made out
of.
>
>You are an uncommonly misinformed fool. Anyone who watches
>"Wings" on the Discovery Channel knows that an F-16 is very
>impervious to small arms fire! What scares me is that goons like
>you are carrying lethal force around. I guess the NRA did have
>some success. They bought off enough legislators to allow
>goon like you to get CCW permits in most states!
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
William Hughes
On 24 May 1997 20:50:28 GMT, soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) wrote:
> All it takes is one shot in the right place and that F16 ain't
>worth nothing more than the scrap price of the metal it is made out of.
>
>You are an uncommonly misinformed fool. Anyone who watches
>"Wings" on the Discovery Channel knows that an F-16 is very
>impervious to small arms fire! What scares me is that goons like
>you are carrying lethal force around. I guess the NRA did have
>some success. They bought off enough legislators to allow
>goon like you to get CCW permits in most states!
You have watched a sixty minute documentary on a television station.
I served for almost four years in a unit that flew F-16s.
Which of us is more qualified to speak on this subject?
BTW, you are totally incorrect. Assuming a proper deflection shot, an F-16 can be taken down by a
rifle. However, it is much easier to use that rifle to shoot the pilot, the crew chief, the
refuelling crew, the refuelling truck, the munitions crew, etc., etc., etc.
TSgt William Hughes, USAF
====================================================================================================
William Hughes, San Antonio, Texas, USA lsc2...@flash.net 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
ru
On 25 May 1997 01:17:04 GMT, mort...@ix.netcom.com(Eor on Crack)
wrote:
>
>Will somebody ppplllleeeeaaaasssseeee teach this poor bastard how to
>post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Mortalis
Oh, he knows what he's doing. He gets some kind of pleasure out of it.
I used to see his stuff back on the BBS systems. He doesn't change.
Ask him about his views on bisexuality :)
ru
On 24 May 1997 20:23:15 GMT, soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) wrote:
>>Show us where it state that Miller lost the case.
>
>You think he WON? If you'd bother to look up that case, you'd see that
>Miller didn't even show up! I'd look it up for you, but I cannot see my
>benefit from looking up cases for gun loons!
Ah, yes. This is another signature piece. The inability to do YOUR
homework for YOU. Over time you begin to see a pattern of NEVER
backing up claims or denials with facts. Doesn't matter if it's on BBS
or Internet. The game's the same.
SOCINUS2
are you saying that you would rather put up with government tyranny
than resist?
No, I think every able-bodied man in the future ought to get
his own laser gun from a surplus store and shoot at government
star ships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCINUS2
So, resistance is futile, you will be assimilated whether
you like it or not. I think that a bunch of snot nosed, self
centered brats that would rather comform to whatever is
politically correct than demand that the governing body
follow its own rules. You and your ilk would just as soon
have everyone slaves of the state rather than be self reliant
citizens.
We're all so lucky, aren't we, that we have patriots like you, Joe,
to take up arms for us, since we, unlike you, are such a bunch of
spineless cowards. Do you oppose the idea, though, Joe, that
those whom you despise have the same power at the ballot box
as you. Maybe you'd like it here better if you were our dictator
defending us all from the boogiemen you see as threatening
us all. What it is that you don't realize, Joe, is that your type of
thought is the greatest threat we have.
no one of consequence
SOCINUS2 <soci...@aol.com> wrote:
]> All it takes is one shot in the right place and that F16 ain't
]>worth nothing more than the scrap price of the metal it is made out of.
Do you see the '>' marks I added? They denote the text you quoted in your
article. Learn how to use it, please. Even an AOL'er like you should be
able to figure out how.
]You are an uncommonly misinformed fool. Anyone who watches
]"Wings" on the Discovery Channel knows that an F-16 is very
]impervious to small arms fire!
Bull. You must have been looking away from the TV when they showed the
A-10 or something.
Which doesn't matter since your assertion earlier was a strawman argument.
Try addressing your ignorance by looking up a few things on guerilla
warfare. This means you will have to go to a library or bookstore and READ
something, okay?
]What scares me is that goons like
]you are carrying lethal force around.
That is your choice.
]I guess the NRA did have
]some success. They bought off enough legislators to allow
]goon like you to get CCW permits in most states!
Proof, Mr. Paranoid Bigot?
--
|Patrick Chester <*> wol...@io.com|
|"Cannot run out of time. There is infinite time. You are finite. Zathras|
| is finite. This.. is wrong tool." -Zathras, "War Without End Part 2" |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article. |
James F. Mayer
In <19970525205...@ladder01.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
> So, resistance is futile, you will be assimilated whether
>you like it or not. I think that a bunch of snot nosed, self
>centered brats that would rather comform to whatever is
>politically correct than demand that the governing body
>follow its own rules. You and your ilk would just as soon
>have everyone slaves of the state rather than be self reliant
>citizens.
>
>We're all so lucky, aren't we, that we have patriots like you, Joe,
>to take up arms for us, since we, unlike you, are such a bunch of
>spineless cowards. Do you oppose the idea, though, Joe, that
>those whom you despise have the same power at the ballot box
>as you. Maybe you'd like it here better if you were our dictator
>defending us all from the boogiemen you see as threatening
>us all. What it is that you don't realize, Joe, is that your type of
>thought is the greatest threat we have.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see that Socinus doesn't even know to whom he replies. He has
been proven wrong again as I wrote what he replied to and NOT someone
known as "Joe". Your type of uninformed, ignorant, non-thought support
of the currently politically correct is the greatest threat we have.
SOCINUS2
. But that F16 doesn't do much good if the pilot has his brains
splattered out as he leaves his mistress' house.
A major difference between us is that I cannot support murder,
even when it supports my views. And you guys want
states to allow CCW?
SOCINUS2
would just as soon have everyone slaves of the state rather than be
self reliant citizens.
I feel so very lucky, James, even though I am a spineless
coward, that our society has Rambos like you to defend
my liberties :)
SOCINUS2
Anyone who watches
>"Wings" on the Discovery Channel knows that an F-16 is very
>impervious to small arms fire!
I see that you have been educated by the weekly sitcoms. It is
most refreshing to know that your education is nothing more than sitcom
blather.
Any fool knows, except possibly you James, that although
Discovery Channel's "Wings" has the same name as a
sitcom you watch, that it is a documentary series on
airpower.
I don't think so, as their skin is nothing more than thin
sheet aluminum not any more than .060 inches thick.
I am quite aware, James, that an F16's skin can be pierced
by small arms fire, maybe even a .22, but for the plane to
suffer enough internal damage from a small arms hit is
very unlikely, and furthermore, James, I imagine it would
take a far better marksman that you to even hit one. What's
tragic is that there are so many fools like you around who
think they could bring down an F16 with a deer rifle :)
SOCINUS2
Will somebody ppplllleeeeaaaasssseeee teach this poor bastard how to
post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
............guess who got his feelings hurt when I realized he
was a gun-nut and wouldn't sell him my guns!
SOCINUS2
#>are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
>>#>a free nation having an armed populace.
>>
>>#Then doubtless you can demonstrate just _why_ the
>>Maybe it's because the Indians have quit
pilliaging settlements :)
Dan Day
On 24 May 1997 18:00:29 GMT, soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) wrote:
>The point, Joe, is that some concepts of many of our Founders,
>like the concept of an armed populace resisting government
>in a camo jacket with a hunting rifle holding off a F-16 is ridiculous.
So is your belief that F-16s would have much of anything to do with
an armed struggle between the populace and a tyrannical government.
Likewise your belief that the only way an armed person could counter
an F-16 is by "holding it off".
You've obviously given this very little thought whatsoever, but I
see that this lack hasn't stopped you from spouting off on the
topic anyway. You might want to ask anyone who has been to a
war college what Uncle Sam himself is teaching about the topic.
The short answer is that the US military itself doesn't consider
the armed populace to be an insignificant problem -- ours, or
anyone else's; why do you think the US military didn't enter
*any* city in Iraq during the Gulf War?
Anyway, your type of lack of imagination occurs often enough around
here that the article I posted the last time this came up is still
relevant and answers the issues you raised:
#### Old post begins here
>To say that a
>bunch of backwoods militia men are going to fend off a military as large
>as the USA's is ludicrous!
It is the way you pose the problem. You're right -- this *isn't* 1795,
which is why such a war wouldn't be fought with ranked troops out in the
open -- that *would* be suicide against a modern army. Fortunately,
the real situation is far different.
Okay, let's say I've got an AK-47 and you've got an F-15 fighter. I'm an
urban guerilla. You don't know where I am, or even who I am. What are
you going to do with your F-15 that counts for anything more than an
enormous waste of fuel? If I wanted to take you (a military fighter
pilot) out, all I have to do is hang around near the air force base,
wait until I see you driving out the gate, and then I've got all the
time in the world to decide when and where I'm going to blow your brains
out. What good is your F-15 doing you?
Let's say I've got an SKS and you've got a nuclear bomb. I'm somewhere
among the civilian population. What good does your bomb do you?
Let's say I've got a .30-06 and you've got an aircraft carrier. As
long as you stay on your aircraft carrier you're pretty safe, but you
won't be doing much for the war effort, either, and there won't be
much you can do to stop me from engaging the "jack-booted thugs" who
would be the real problem.
Let's say you've got a tank. What do you plan to do with it? Where
am I? You have to know where I am before your tank will do you much
good. I *know* where you are -- you're in that big noisy tank. I've
got a variety of options. I can just leave you in your tank and ignore
you. I can wait until you get out (you can't stay in that tank forever)
and nail you from several hundred yards away. Ammonium nitrate bombs
(and other kinds) could ruin your whole day, although that's probably
an extravagant expenditure for the amount of gain. Chemical weapons
are easy to make at home also.
Of course, in the event of a "democracy gone awry" and turned tyrannical,
I wouldn't be the only one you would have to watch out for. There would
be, at a minimum, several hundred thousand other such folks. Surely
you realize that as the government escalated towards tyranny, the size
and numbers of the militias would grow exponentially. Even if the
tyranny arose overnight, the number of folks taking up arms would do
likewise. And if even one person out of a hundred forcefully resisted the
"knock on the door" so common in Nazi Germany, (even if they were eventually
subdued or killed), how long would it be before the government ran out
"jack-booted thugs"? For that matter, how many snipers does it take
to kill one despot?
And then there's the little problem of various army units switching
sides and joining the resistance (bringing their equipment with them)
because they couldn't stomach the tyranny.
The problem is that in the event of a tyranny, the government
and the military which supports it are big, obvious, juicy targets.
Insurgents can pick and choose their targets at their leisure, and
wait for a relatively safe opportunity to arise. The military has
no such luxury -- their opponents are anonymous and hidden among the
general population, which makes most of their modern hardware effectively
useless. The few rebels that they would be able to identify and locate
would, of course, be toast, but that won't be enough to help them win
the war.
No, I don't think the prospects of an armed population fighting off
a tyranny to be "ludicrous" at all. Even if it were so, I'd rather
fight anyway. If the tyrants are going to win, at least make them
pay dearly for it.
SOCINUS2
BTW, you are totally incorrect. Assuming a proper deflection shot, an F-16
can be taken down by a
rifle.
I wonder if the Iraquis knew that :)
SOCINUS2
But since this scenario is too astronimocally remote to be of any value to
a
discussion on the desirability of private ownership of firearms, let's
just
forget about it, shall we...?
Some gun loon who swears that he could shoot down an
F16 with a deer rifle got me started on this subject, but
you are correct that is most other ngs, this topic would be
very off base.
SOCINUS2
I hate to break the news to you, but a regular ol' over-sized militia with
mostly light weaponry just steam-rolled over the standing army of Zaire.
Did you notice how much of a fight the professional army puts up? And
I think you can assume they had a few fighter-bomber planes, tanks,
and artillery at the government's disposal....
Yeah, 12 year olds with AK-47s sure make fine soldiers.
I'll bet you could have led them if you'd been there. :)
SOCINUS2
If you'd bother to look up that case,
I have, have you?
SOCINUS2
>Will somebody ppplllleeeeaaaasssseeee teach this poor bastard how to
>post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Oh, he knows what he's doing. He gets some kind of pleasure out of it.
I used to see his stuff back on the BBS systems. He doesn't change.
Ask him about his views on bisexuality :)
...yeah, gun -nuts do get irate at times, I guess that's why they
need a device to project their personality beyond what they
can do by their own resources. :)
SOCINUS2
warfare. This means you will have to go to a library or bookstore and READ
something, okay?
I do most of my reading in law libraries, which is maybe why
we hold such differing viewpoints :)
SOCINUS2
I see that Socinus doesn't even know to whom he replies. He has
been proven wrong again as I wrote what he replied to and NOT someone
known as "Joe". Your type of uninformed, ignorant, non-thought support
of the currently politically correct is the greatest threat we have.
I am truly sorry I directed my email to an improper party, though
your comments do suggest it was to one of similar views. By the
way, just which of my assertions have been 'proven wrong'?
SOCINUS2
A major difference between us is that I cannot support murder,
even when it supports my views.
Oh. Then you are an absolute pacifist? Oppose every war that has
ever happened? Would you just have filed a strong protest against
German treatment of certain racial groups during WW2?
And you guys want states to allow CCW?
I fail to see the relevance between CCW and murder. It is not
a license to kill, you know.
....... The problem is that it makes it more likely that some
loon who gets a wild hair to ambush some F16 pilot as
he leaves home where his wife and kids live would be
armed.
SOCINUS2
I served for almost four years in a unit that flew F-16s.
Which of us is more qualified to speak on this subject?
I know little, indeed, about the F16, but one need not know too
much about that plane to know that some old beer-guzzler with
a deer rifle probably cannot shoot one down :)
Nosy
< Will somebody ppplllleeeeaaaasssseeee teach this poor bastard how to
< post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
< ............guess who got his feelings hurt when I realized he
< was a gun-nut and wouldn't sell him my guns!
Snicker.
Socinus2 can't seem to figure out how to include text, or
how to "do" attribution correctly, either.
Lurkers might wonder what else Socinus2 can't figure out...
SOCINUS2
Ask him about his views on bisexuality :)
I hold no strong feelings about your type at all:)
Eric Pinnell
SOCINUS2 wrote:
>
> I don't think so, as their skin is nothing more than thin
> sheet aluminum not any more than .060 inches thick.
>
> I am quite aware, James, that an F16's skin can be pierced
> by small arms fire, maybe even a .22, but for the plane to
> suffer enough internal damage from a small arms hit is
> very unlikely, and furthermore, James, I imagine it would
> take a far better marksman that you to even hit one. What's
> tragic is that there are so many fools like you around who
In point of fact, you could easily bring down an F16 with
a deer rifle, assuming you could hit it in the right place. And
FWIW, you forget things like .50 BMG rounds and other sundry
heavy rifles.
Mind you, getting a hit on such a plane would be damned tough,
if not total BS luck.
Eric Pinnell
Lone_Wolf
In <338B5B...@ibm.net> Eric Pinnell <epi...@ibm.net> writes:
#SOCINUS2 wrote:
#>
#> I don't think so, as their skin is nothing more than thin
#> sheet aluminum not any more than .060 inches thick.
#>
#> I am quite aware, James, that an F16's skin can be pierced
#> by small arms fire, maybe even a .22, but for the plane to
#> suffer enough internal damage from a small arms hit is
#> very unlikely, and furthermore, James, I imagine it would
#> take a far better marksman that you to even hit one. What's
#> tragic is that there are so many fools like you around who
#> think they could bring down an F16 with a deer rifle :)
# In point of fact, you could easily bring down an F16 with
#a deer rifle, assuming you could hit it in the right place. And
#FWIW, you forget things like .50 BMG rounds and other sundry
#heavy rifles.
# Mind you, getting a hit on such a plane would be damned tough,
#if not total BS luck.
Not difficult at all. Wait until the damned thing is on the ground and put
a few rounds through the fan. Or through the pilot, fans are easy to replace.
Of course, the F16 pilot has a few problems, if he's looking for me... Kinda
hard to spot one person from 2k feet, especially when trying to keep above
stall speed.
Which is the point Socinus2 doesnt' want to address: the different tactics
used in an insurgency/guerrilla campaign compared to 'conventional' warfare.
James
#Eric Pinnell
Nosy
<In article <19970527173...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) writes:
SOMEONE wrote:
< I hate to break the news to you, but a regular ol' over-sized militia with
< mostly light weaponry just steam-rolled over the standing army of Zaire.
< Did you notice how much of a fight the professional army puts up? And
< I think you can assume they had a few fighter-bomber planes, tanks,
< and artillery at the government's disposal....
< Yeah, 12 year olds with AK-47s sure make fine soldiers.
Irrelevent to the issue at hand.
< I'll bet you could have led them if you'd been there. :)
Lurkers might want to note that Socinus2, when presented with
an argument that is "too hard" to deal with, retreats to
changing the subject and insults under the thin veil of
a "smiley".
James F. Mayer
In <19970527193...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
>I served for almost four years in a unit that flew F-16s.
>
>Which of us is more qualified to speak on this subject?
>
>I know little, indeed, about the F16, but one need not know too
>much about that plane to know that some old beer-guzzler with
>a deer rifle probably cannot shoot one down :)
Yes, we know that you do not know too much and your constant
referal to gun owners as beer guzzlers. How much beer do you consume?
James F. Mayer
In <19970527164...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
>Anyone who watches
>>"Wings" on the Discovery Channel knows that an F-16 is very
>>impervious to small arms fire!
>
> I see that you have been educated by the weekly sitcoms. It is
>most refreshing to know that your education is nothing more than
sitcom
>blather.
>
>Any fool knows, except possibly you James, that although
>Discovery Channel's "Wings" has the same name as a
>sitcom you watch, that it is a documentary series on
>airpower.
>
>
All I need to hit is one vital fuel line or one hydraulic line and
the plane is toast. What's so tragic is that fools like you can't
think past your ignorance.
no one of consequence
Nosy <ata...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
]<In article <19970527165...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) writes:
]
]< Will somebody ppplllleeeeaaaasssseeee teach this poor bastard how to
]< post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
]
]< ............guess who got his feelings hurt when I realized he
]< was a gun-nut and wouldn't sell him my guns!
]
] Snicker.
]
] Socinus2 can't seem to figure out how to include text, or
] how to "do" attribution correctly, either.
Odd how it seems that every other AOLer can 'do' attribution, but Socinus2
can't.... or won't?
Which is it, Socinus? Are you too dense to figure out AOL's newsreader or
just a rude bastard?
no one of consequence
SOCINUS2 <soci...@aol.com> wrote:
]>But since this scenario is too astronimocally remote to be of any value
]>to a discussion on the desirability of private ownership of firearms,
]>let's just forget about it, shall we...?
]Some gun loon who swears that he could shoot down an
]F16 with a deer rifle got me started on this subject
Oh, really? Could you provide a quote for that? I can't seem to find
anyone but you bringing up that little claim.
I guess you must be a gunloon.
James F. Mayer
In <19970526185...@ladder01.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
That you wouldn't defend yourself. You would just as soon let
others do what you don't have the nerve to do yourself.
me
SOCINUS2 wrote:
>
> >Will somebody ppplllleeeeaaaasssseeee teach this poor bastard how to
> >post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> Oh, he knows what he's doing. He gets some kind of pleasure out of it.
> I used to see his stuff back on the BBS systems. He doesn't change.
>
> need a device to project their personality beyond what they
> can do by their own resources. :)
Like you and the Internet, I guess.
Also, why can't you make proper attributions?
When does your 10 hours run out?
James F. Mayer
In <19970527165...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
>>Will somebody ppplllleeeeaaaasssseeee teach this poor bastard how to
>>post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>Mortalis
>Oh, he knows what he's doing. He gets some kind of pleasure out of it.
>I used to see his stuff back on the BBS systems. He doesn't change.
>Ask him about his views on bisexuality :)
>
>...yeah, gun -nuts do get irate at times, I guess that's why they
>need a device to project their personality beyond what they
>can do by their own resources. :)
It seems that the gun control advocates are the ones that do the
most projecting because they have no cogent arguments that are based on
reality.
James F. Mayer
In <19970527171...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
> I see that Socinus doesn't even know to whom he replies. He has
>been proven wrong again as I wrote what he replied to and NOT someone
>known as "Joe". Your type of uninformed, ignorant, non-thought
support
>of the currently politically correct is the greatest threat we have.
>
>I am truly sorry I directed my email to an improper party, though
>your comments do suggest it was to one of similar views. By the
>way, just which of my assertions have been 'proven wrong'?
Almost all of them.
Scout
In article <19970527193...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, soci...@aol.com
says...
>
>I served for almost four years in a unit that flew F-16s.
>
>Which of us is more qualified to speak on this subject?
>
>I know little, indeed, about the F16, but one need not know too
>much about that plane to know that some old beer-guzzler with
>a deer rifle probably cannot shoot one down :)
Perhaps, not when it's in flight mode. but how about when it's in the
approach/departure corridor (also known as low and slow), or worse when it's
sitting on the tarmac??? Why do infantry manual cover exactly this type of
engagement?
--
- 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?
eh
On 27 May 1997 19:29:50 GMT, soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) wrote:
>>Ask him about his views on bisexuality :)
>
>I hold no strong feelings about your type at all:)
Is this like another TEST from the Zen Master, Socinus2 ?
As usual there is NO articulate meaning passed.
One wonders what "YOUR TYPE" could possibly mean ?
a) the other fellow is bisexual ?
b) the other fellow is straight ?
c) Socinus2 is overly paranoid ? (read all answers first :)
d) Socinus2 is from the "I know you are, but what am I ?" Debate Team.
Joe Sylvester
In article <19970527170...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, soci...@aol.com
says...
>
>BTW, you are totally incorrect. Assuming a proper deflection shot, an F-16
>can be taken down by a
>rifle.
>
>I wonder if the Iraquis knew that :)
'Course they did, the Mig-21,23,27 and 29 are just as vulnerable to a "golden
BB'. A particularly vulnerable part on many aircraft, including the F-16 is
the often visible compressor section of the turbine. A bullet makes great FOD
(foriegn object (damage)).
Now it is darned hard to get a hit, unless you have lots of folks shooting,
which the North Vietnamese often did, and with SKS's and AK-47s, a whole lot
less powerfull than say a 30-06 hunting rifle, or especially one of those .50
BMG rifles that are quite legal to own.
This is of course when the aircraft is airborne and at cruise (or above)
speed. Low and slow as in takeoff and landing, also predictable, or on the
ground and parked or taxing is another thing entirely.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>----------
>In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be
> thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.
> H.L.
Menc
>ken
--
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 !
Lone_Wolf
In <5mfpqo$k...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> jf...@ix.netcom.com(James F. Mayer) writes:
#In <19970527193...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
#(SOCINUS2) writes:
#>
#>I served for almost four years in a unit that flew F-16s.
#>
#>Which of us is more qualified to speak on this subject?
#>
#>I know little, indeed, about the F16, but one need not know too
#>much about that plane to know that some old beer-guzzler with
#>a deer rifle probably cannot shoot one down :)
# Yes, we know that you do not know too much and your constant
#referal to gun owners as beer guzzlers. How much beer do you consume?
Hrms... I think I had a beer last month, or the month before, when my wife
and I went out for dinner...
As for serving in a unit that flew F16's, what was your MOS and rank,
Socinus2? Unit designation would also help us decide whether this is
another of your lies, too.
James
SOCINUS2
Socinus2 can't seem to figure out how to include text, or
] how to "do" attribution correctly, either.
I do admit I made and error, but that isn't near as bad as sitting in it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCINUS2
All I need to hit is one vital fuel line or one hydraulic line and
the plane is toast. What's so tragic is that fools like you can't
think past your ignorance.
Though I am not very knowledgeable about such matters (I am
sure an expert on F16s might know), I would sure rather
bet on the F16 than a old fool with a deer rifle in the woods wearing
an NRA cap and an NRA patch on his camo jacket sceaming about
his 2nd Am rights who probably couldn't even hit any target
that cannot be ambushed from his deer blind.
SOCINUS2
I used to see his stuff back on the BBS systems.
That's most interesting, Mortalis, since I have never
posted anything under this handle on any BBS. Are
you not being totally truthful, Mortalis?
SOCINUS2
One wonders what "YOUR TYPE" could possibly mean ?
That you're one of those bisexuals. I have never had any leanings
in that direction, however I suspect that a guy who brings up that
subject in a gun nut ng might be one just looking for a male partner
who believes in 2nd Am rights as strongly as he does :)
SOCINUS2
I served for almost four years in a unit that flew F-16s.
Perhaps you should tell us what you did in that unit.The unit's
janitor who mopped floors and cleaned Johns also served in a unit
that flew F16s.
Nosy
<In article <19970528172...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) writes:
< Socinus2 can't seem to figure out how to include text, or
< ] how to "do" attribution correctly, either.
< I do admit I made and error, but that isn't near as bad as sitting in it!
Socinus2 makes the same error over and over again.
That's rather close to "sitting in it", now isn't that the case?
SOCINUS2
I see that Socinus doesn't even know to whom he replies.
I apologize if I misdirected my reply, however it still went to a person
holding a similar philosophy.
SOCINUS2
A major difference between us is that I cannot support murder,
even when it supports my views.
Oh. Then you are an absolute pacifist?
What make you assume that just because a man is opposed to
murder, he's a pacifist. Those two things are radically different.
And for your information, I am no pacifist.
SOCINUS2
I didn't say that, did I. He neither won nor lost because he was
DEAD.
Miller's case being moot still didn't keep the SC from ruling
that the NFA didn't violate the 2nd Am.
SOCINUS2
3. The issue before the Supreme Court in _Miller_ was whether the
district court should have, without any evidence being presented,
assumed (taken judicial notice) that a sawed off shotgun was a weapon
that could have been used by a militia. The Supreme Court ruled that
the district court, lacking any evidence, could have so ruled. The
Supreme Court sent the case back down for an evidentiary hearing on the
issue of whether militias would have a use for a sawed off shotgun.
Hint: sawed off shotguns were used by U.S. forces in WWI. They called
them "trench guns."
.....just amazing, since there was no 'trench warfare' in WWII.
Your analysis of the issues in US v Miller would be far more
convincing if you'd read the case in a law library rather than
rely on the "American Rifleman" for analysis. Are you incapable
of looking into unbiased sources before you form your opinions?
I'll even get you started: Link to
'http://www.fedworld.com/supcourt/index.html' and read the full
text of the SC's opinion under 'selected historic cases'
Nosy
< I see that Socinus doesn't even know to whom he replies.
< I apologize if I misdirected my reply, however it still went to a person
< holding a similar philosophy.
"Guilt by association", now?
How expected.
Eric Pinnell
> Not difficult at all. Wait until the damned thing is on the ground and put
> a few rounds through the fan. Or through the pilot, fans are easy to replace.
> Of course, the F16 pilot has a few problems, if he's looking for me... Kinda
> hard to spot one person from 2k feet, especially when trying to keep above
> stall speed.
Ah, but such damage is easily repaired while the bird is still on the
ground. If you're going to fire at an F-16 on the ground, you'd want
either some sort of incendiary round or a mortar. A bulllet hit on a
flying
F-16 is a different beast, because a hit on a turbine blade means loss
of engine,
which means loss of plane.
> Which is the point Socinus2 doesnt' want to address: the different tactics
> used in an insurgency/guerrilla campaign compared to 'conventional' warfare.
>
> James
Socinus is a typical arrogant leftist who knows nothing of what war
is about.
However, I'd like to address the "assassinate the pilot" scenario. Once
you begin
offing pilots, how long will it take before they're all moved onto
facilties on
the airbase?
The ideal form of sabotage would be to put a coagulant in the jet's
fuel system
which would cause it to stall AFTER it takes off.
Eric Pinnell
Nosy
SOMEONE wrote:
< 3. The issue before the Supreme Court in _Miller_ was whether the
< district court should have, without any evidence being presented,
< assumed (taken judicial notice) that a sawed off shotgun was a weapon
< that could have been used by a militia. The Supreme Court ruled that
< the district court, lacking any evidence, could have so ruled. The
< Supreme Court sent the case back down for an evidentiary hearing on the
< issue of whether militias would have a use for a sawed off shotgun.
< Hint: sawed off shotguns were used by U.S. forces in WWI. They called
^^^
< them "trench guns."
< .....just amazing, since there was no 'trench warfare' in WWII.
Just amazing; "WWI" and "WWII" are clearly not the same
set of symbols.
More evidence that Socinus2 doesn't bother to read postings,
just replies in a semi-random fashion.
SOCINUS2
Anyone who watches
>"Wings" on the Discovery Channel knows that an F-16 is very
>impervious to small arms fire!
I am well aware that watching a documentary series on TV does not
make me an expert of F16s, just one who knows the guy trying to
shoot one down with a deer rifle will most certianly fail to even hit it,
less likely in a vital spot.
kend...@pilot.msu.edu
In article <19970528184...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, soci...@aol.com (SOCINUS2) wrote:
>3. The issue before the Supreme Court in _Miller_ was whether the
>district court should have, without any evidence being presented,
>assumed (taken judicial notice) that a sawed off shotgun was a weapon
>that could have been used by a militia. The Supreme Court ruled that
>the district court, lacking any evidence, could have so ruled. The
>Supreme Court sent the case back down for an evidentiary hearing on the
>issue of whether militias would have a use for a sawed off shotgun.
>Hint: sawed off shotguns were used by U.S. forces in WWI. They called
>
>......just amazing, since there was no 'trench warfare' in WWII.
>convincing if you'd read the case in a law library rather than
>rely on the "American Rifleman" for analysis. Are you incapable
>of looking into unbiased sources before you form your opinions?
>I'll even get you started: Link to
> 'http://www.fedworld.com/supcourt/index.html' and read the full
>text of the SC's opinion under 'selected historic cases'
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------
> thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.
> H.L.
> Mencken
You should reread his post (and some basic chronology): it says WWI (World War
I 1914-1918), not WWII, and in any case Miller occurred before the outbreak of
the Second World War. In any case shotguns have been used in all major US
conflicts since WWI at least - ie WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc, so yes it is a
militia weapon. What the prosecution asserted (quite tricky of them) was that
"this weapon" had not been used military - which it quite likely was not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't worry men, I know a trap when I see one!" -Second to last words
of Publius Quinctillius Varus, Teutoberger Wald, AD 9
"Ecastor! Look at all those mentulae Germanicii!" - The Last words
of Publius Quinctillius Varus, Teutoberger Wald, AD 9
Aaron Kendal
kend...@pilot.msu.edu, ad...@msu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lone_Wolf
In <338C65...@ibm.net> Eric Pinnell <epi...@ibm.net> writes:
#Lone_Wolf wrote:
#>
#> In <338B5B...@ibm.net> Eric Pinnell <epi...@ibm.net> writes:
#> Not difficult at all. Wait until the damned thing is on the ground and put
#> a few rounds through the fan. Or through the pilot, fans are easy to replace.
#> Of course, the F16 pilot has a few problems, if he's looking for me... Kinda
#> hard to spot one person from 2k feet, especially when trying to keep above
#> stall speed.
# Ah, but such damage is easily repaired while the bird is still on the
#ground. If you're going to fire at an F-16 on the ground, you'd want
#either some sort of incendiary round or a mortar. A bulllet hit on a
#flying
#F-16 is a different beast, because a hit on a turbine blade means loss
#of engine,
#which means loss of plane.
Easily repaired on the ground ONLY if it is noticed before engine startup or
if the engine isn't on when hit...
#
#> Which is the point Socinus2 doesnt' want to address: the different tactics
#> used in an insurgency/guerrilla campaign compared to 'conventional' warfare.
#>
#> James
# Socinus is a typical arrogant leftist who knows nothing of what war
#is about.
#However, I'd like to address the "assassinate the pilot" scenario. Once
#you begin
#offing pilots, how long will it take before they're all moved onto
#facilties on
#the airbase?
Most airbases I've seen, the runways are fairly close to the base perimeter.
Certainly within rifle range. Then there are the problems with finding
housing for that many aircrews on short notice, since many officers live off
base for greater privacy, especially when single (the BOQ isn't known for
luxury accomadations, most places).
# The ideal form of sabotage would be to put a coagulant in the jet's
There's a recent book out postulating the use of air-delivered superglue on
aircraft before they take off...
James
#fuel system
#which would cause it to stall AFTER it takes off.
#Eric Pinnell
SOCINUS2
>
=| The NRA presents some of its arguments about the Miller case in its
=| slick pamphlet "Ten Myths About Gun Control". Have these arguments
ever
=| been tested in court? The answer is, "Yes, they have."
=|
Legal citations for us all, please!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCINUS2
Miller didn't lose and there are serious doubts about your reading
comprehension. Don't you find your interpretations troublesome because
they seem to fly in the face of reality? You don't seem to see
anything other than what you want to see. Show us where it state that
Miller lost the case.
Miller's attorney filed an appeal of some federal district court's (state,
I
cannot recall) that his conviction under the NFA for the interstate
transport of a sawed off shotgun without a federal permit was in
violation of his 2nd Am rights. The SC ruled, even though Miller died,
that the NFA was Constitutional, saying that the 2nd Am only protects
a person's having a gun in conjunction with service in a well-regulated
militia, and I really don't think a band of old men in camo jackets
shooting
up the woods and calling themselves a militia would quality for 2nd Am
protection.
SOCINUS2
Miller didn't lose
Miller's claim, that the NFA was a violation of the 2nd Am was rejected
in US v Miller. I have been told by your fellow gun nut that Miller
died as his case was being appealed to the SC, but if he had lived,
I am sure he would have been convicted of violating the NFA, since
his claim to innocence, the unconstitutionality of the NFA, was rejected
by the SC. Even you could verify that by reading Justice McReynold's
majority opinion in US v Miller in a law library. I have been told here
that
this link is invalid, but I verified it in my address book, and linked to
it fine.
The URL for many SC decisions is
'http://www.fedworld.com/supcourt/index.html'
Scout
In article <338C65...@ibm.net>, epi...@ibm.net says...
>
>Lone_Wolf wrote:
>>
>> In <338B5B...@ibm.net> Eric Pinnell <epi...@ibm.net> writes:
>
>> Not difficult at all. Wait until the damned thing is on the ground and put
replace.
Kinda
>
> Ah, but such damage is easily repaired while the bird is still on the
>F-16 is a different beast, because a hit on a turbine blade means loss
>which means loss of plane.
Just a note: Just because an F-16 is on the ground does not ALWAYS mean the
turbine is shut down. Particularly in those periods between landing and
shutdown, or start up and take off. Either would prove just as damaging to the
turbine as in flight, and the F-16 is still for all pratical purpose a
"sitting duck". This ignores landings and takeoffs, landings in particular
limit the actions and responses of a pilot if he expects to land and not
crash.
Finally, while such damage is easy to fix, it's easier to break. Bang!
Another blade off the turbine. OK pull the engine, change the blade, preform a
static test, reinstall in the aircraft, preform a ground test, then after 12
hours of labor, the sniper sits up for a few seconds and Bang. Do all that
work again. In any case, easy repair or not, the plane won't fly until
repaired. Effectively rendered 'dead' for a period of time. Don't even think
about the effects if he misses and puts a round through a wire bundle instead.
Ouch!
John_Johnson
In <19970528184...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>> 3. The issue before the Supreme Court in _Miller_ was whether the
>> district court should have, without any evidence being presented,
>> assumed (taken judicial notice) that a sawed off shotgun was a
>> weapon that could have been used by a militia. The Supreme Court
>> ruled that the district court, lacking any evidence, could have so
>> ruled. The Supreme Court sent the case back down for an evidentiary
>> hearing on the issue of whether militias would have a use for a
>> sawed off shotgun.
>> Hint: sawed off shotguns were used by U.S. forces in WWI. They
>> called them "trench guns."
>
> .....just amazing, since there was no 'trench warfare' in WWII.
EXCUSE ME!?!
Just WHAT would you call those long, dug-out indentions from
which my Dad had to root out the Japanese Imperial Army on
Guadalcanal, etc., if they wern't "trenches?"
> Your analysis of the issues in US v Miller would be far more
> convincing if you'd read the case in a law library rather than
> rely on the "American Rifleman" for analysis.
Read it a LONG time ago!
Basically, they said "You (the Federal Prosecutor) come here with
an opinion (that Short-Barreled Shotguns are of no use to the
Militia, thereby are not protected by the Second Amendment) and you
produce no evidence that this was fully addressed at the Trial Court
level and we (the SCOTUS) have no 'knowledge' whether this is true or
not WRT Miller and Layman; so go back, present whatever evidence For
or Against to the District Court Judge for his judgment, and if the
issue is STILL 'cloudy' come back here and we'll 'clear it up.'"
> Are you incapable of looking into unbiased sources before you form
> your opinions?
> I'll even get you started: Link to
> 'http://www.fedworld.com/supcourt/index.html'...
No good:
"Netscape is unable to locate the Server: www.fedworld.com
This Server does not have a DNS entry.
Check the Server name in the location (URL) and try again."
>... and read the full text of the SC's opinion under 'selected
> historic cases'
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be
> thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.
> H.L. Mencken
--John Johnson
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
--George Santayana, American Philosopher
"The further backward you look, the further forward you can see."
-- Winston Churchill
"Throughout recorded history, without exception, it has been
the sole accomplishment of organized government to deprive
their populations of their Liberty and of their Property."
--John C. Calhoun
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect
everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing
will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up
that force, you are ruined."
-- Patrick Henry
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government
officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that
are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence
of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the
law scrupulously." --Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting,
Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
"It would...be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the
rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the
right to maintain a designated 'Militia' -- and to find that
purely institutional guarantee accorded a position of great
prominence immediately following freedom of religion and freedom
of speech." (Italics in original)
--Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
on the Second Amendment:
(A Matter of Interpretation: Federal
Courts and the Law, Princeton
University Press, 1997, 159 pages.)
"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be
maintained; for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
--Abraham Lincoln
ATTENTION citizens near the east coast! That rumbling sound you
hear is NOT an earthquake! It's just the sounds of Washington,
Hamilton, Jefferson, Allen, Witherspoon, et al; spinning in their
graves! --John Johnson (1996)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in |
| compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, |
|"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching"|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From the computer of:
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
The opinions expressed above represent those of the writer (me)
and not necessarily those of his employer (also me).
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C),
it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation. All incoming unsolicited
commercial traffic will therefore be billed at a rate of $500 per msg
to compensate for loss of service.
SOCINUS2
That you wouldn't defend yourself. You would just as soon let
others do what you don't have the nerve to do yourself.
I would be the first person to defend myself. I just wouldn't broadcast
to the whole world that I am a nut, and not get my rocks off petending
to be Sylvester Stallone holding a machine gun in my arm and shooting
up bad guys.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCINUS2
But course,an unarmed populance is desireable...You can manipulate,
coerce,and extort them to a much greater extent,than you can a
well armed,and informed citizenry...Which is one of the reasons,that
collectivists of all types frown upon an armed citizenry.
Go get'em, Rambo, defend our liberties against those nasty old
collectivists.
John_Johnson
Actually; replacing a single (or multiple) blade(s) in the
compressor (or the "hot") section of a jet turbine engine is
not considered a "Field-Repairable Failure."
It takes very specialized equipment to remove and replace
the individual blades; followed by a SERIOUS Dynamic Balancing
session!
However; the Flight Mechanics could replace the turbine blade
ASSEMBLY in the field; sending the damaged one in for repairs.
The reason I know this is I had a friend who did this very
job while working as a Repair Supervisor for Dallas Airmotive.
> --
> - 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?
--John Johnson
James F. Mayer
In <19970528173...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
> All I need to hit is one vital fuel line or one hydraulic line and
>the plane is toast. What's so tragic is that fools like you can't
>think past your ignorance.
>
>Though I am not very knowledgeable about such matters (I am
>sure an expert on F16s might know), I would sure rather
>bet on the F16 than a old fool with a deer rifle in the woods wearing
>an NRA cap and an NRA patch on his camo jacket sceaming about
>his 2nd Am rights who probably couldn't even hit any target
>that cannot be ambushed from his deer blind.
And I'm sure that you have little or no knowledge what you are
talking about and continuously reaffirm thet with every post that a
bigot like you makes. It amazes me that you have such a limited view
and such a single minded passion to describe gun owners in a single
light. It's too bad that your conception of gun owners it completely
wrong like the rest of your pronouncements. You wouldn't recognize a
fact if it jumped up and slapped you.
James F. Mayer
In <19970528182...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
>But course,an unarmed populance is desireable...You can manipulate,
>coerce,and extort them to a much greater extent,than you can a
>well armed,and informed citizenry...Which is one of the reasons,that
>collectivists of all types frown upon an armed citizenry.
>
>Go get'em, Rambo, defend our liberties against those nasty old
>collectivists.
How do you know when a gun control law is reasonable? At what
point do they become unreasonable?
How much of your personal freedom are you willing to give up for
your safety?
Joe Sylvester
In article <19970527171...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, soci...@aol.com
says...
>
>#>are not too applicable today, just like the notion of
>>>#>a free nation having an armed populace.
>>>
>>>#Then doubtless you can demonstrate just _why_ the
>latter concept isn't applicable...
>
>Maybe it's because the Indians have quit
>pilliaging settlements :)
Tell it to the shopowners in South Central, LA or those whose property was
looted after Hurricane Andrew(?) in south Florida. Those may not have been
aboriginal amercians, but the effect was the same. So was the solution, armed
property owners.
--
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 !
Joe Sylvester
In article <19970528175...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, soci...@aol.com
says...
>
>I served for almost four years in a unit that flew F-16s.
>
>Perhaps you should tell us what you did in that unit.The unit's
>janitor who mopped floors and cleaned Johns also served in a unit
>that flew F16s.
He maintained the airplanes you wank, which if you'd lurked awhile before
jumping in with both feet in your mouth, as proper netiquite requires, you'd
know that. Nekulturny.
--
The Second Amendment is the RESET button
of the United States Constitution.
---Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Joe Sylvester
Captain USAFR(ret)
James F. Mayer
In <19970528184...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
>3. The issue before the Supreme Court in _Miller_ was whether the
>district court should have, without any evidence being presented,
>assumed (taken judicial notice) that a sawed off shotgun was a weapon
>that could have been used by a militia. The Supreme Court ruled that
>the district court, lacking any evidence, could have so ruled. The
>Supreme Court sent the case back down for an evidentiary hearing on
the
>issue of whether militias would have a use for a sawed off shotgun.
>Hint: sawed off shotguns were used by U.S. forces in WWI. They called
>them "trench guns."
>
>.....just amazing, since there was no 'trench warfare' in WWII.
You cant even read thi line above whaer you start your answer. You
are wrong again! He said WW I as in WORLD WAR ONE.
>Your analysis of the issues in US v Miller would be far more
>convincing if you'd read the case in a law library rather than
>rely on the "American Rifleman" for analysis.
And you would far better if you had any reasonable amount of
reading comprehension and could make interpretations withpout your HCI
guide to federal court cases.
Are you incapable
>of looking into unbiased sources before you form your opinions?
>I'll even get you started: Link to
> 'http://www.fedworld.com/supcourt/index.html' and read the full
>text of the SC's opinion under 'selected historic cases'
And this web site doesn't exist as written or haven't you figured
that out yet? How many times do you have to be proven wrong in a day
before you realize that you have no concept of what you are talking
about?
James F. Mayer
In <19970528183...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
> I didn't say that, did I. He neither won nor lost because he was
>DEAD.
>
>Miller's case being moot still didn't keep the SC from ruling
>that the NFA didn't violate the 2nd Am.
They didn't rule any such thing. Read the whole thing and not just
the parts you like.
James F. Mayer
In <19970528212...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
>>
>=| The NRA presents some of its arguments about the Miller case in its
>=| slick pamphlet "Ten Myths About Gun Control". Have these arguments
>ever
>=| been tested in court? The answer is, "Yes, they have."
>=|
>Legal citations for us all, please!
From Albert? You've got to be kidding. The last time it took
nearly 9 months of daily badgering by three people to get one.
James F. Mayer
In <19970528224...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
> Miller didn't lose
>
>Miller's claim, that the NFA was a violation of the 2nd Am was
rejected
>in US v Miller. I have been told by your fellow gun nut that Miller
>died as his case was being appealed to the SC, but if he had lived,
>I am sure he would have been convicted of violating the NFA, since
>his claim to innocence, the unconstitutionality of the NFA, was
rejected
>by the SC. Even you could verify that by reading Justice McReynold's
>majority opinion in US v Miller in a law library. I have been told
here
>that
>this link is invalid, but I verified it in my address book, and linked
to
>it fine.
>The URL for many SC decisions is
>'http://www.fedworld.com/supcourt/index.html'
It is still wrong. You go find out what is wrong with it. I know
but telling you would be doing your homework for you.
James F. Mayer
In <19970528223...@ladder02.news.aol.com> soci...@aol.com
(SOCINUS2) writes:
>
> Miller didn't lose and there are serious doubts about your reading
>comprehension. Don't you find your interpretations troublesome
because
>they seem to fly in the face of reality? You don't seem to see
>anything other than what you want to see. Show us where it state that
>Miller lost the case.
>
>Miller's attorney filed an appeal of some federal district court's
(state,
>I
>cannot recall) that his conviction under the NFA for the interstate
>transport of a sawed off shotgun without a federal permit was in
>violation of his 2nd Am rights. The SC ruled, even though Miller died,
>that the NFA was Constitutional, saying that the 2nd Am only protects
>a person's having a gun in conjunction with service in a
well-regulated
>militia, and I really don't think a band of old men in camo jackets
>shooting
>up the woods and calling themselves a militia would quality for 2nd Am
>protection.
I see that you havent read the whole decision but only those parts
that you think, when selectively edited, confirm your biases. Go read
the whole thing and get the real web site where it is located rather
than the one you keep posting that is wrong.