California to ban the most bad ass gun ever.
- Thread starter mack
- Start date
Then what defense model is?
Injuns, rampaging hordes of Buffalo, and the evil empire (Britain and it's Canadian stooges)?PonySoldier said:
What threat's that then?clancy98 said:
And I can be that ignorant, I'm Engrish.
I would beg to differ..I live in a large, rural western county larger than the state of Rhode Island. Modern Professional Law Enforcement is not always readily available.
Hm, might wanna tell the Iraqi insurgents that they've got no chance. They seem to be doing pretty well with small arms and improvised devices.syadasti said:Oh yes, I am sure a few people (or even the entire civilian population) with small arms are going to take out the law enforcement and military if needed - right
Look, yah, the US military, if somehow ordered to act domestically (through gross legal perversions, but I mean, they used us in the LA riots...), could just crush and destroy any group IF they were willing to just raze an entire state/population. However, the "modern context" which somehow 'invalidates' the right of the people to protect themselves FROM the gov't...(the contextual purpose of the 2nd amendment) also provides the media front on which such a conflict could be fought and won by the lesser power. People don't want to see the US Gov't attacking and killing US citizens.
Just pointing out the fallacy of the train of thought, not necessarily endorsing random gun ownership. In fact, the "well regulated" portion of the 2nd Amendment really leads me to believe there should be much tighter, albeit STATE AND LOCAL gov't level, control of military style firearms in the US, and those that own them should be bound to train with them in an organized and regulated fashion... There's nothing in the Constitution about a right to own Barrett rifles for the purpose of plinking targets.
Edit: Looks like I'm a tad off-base here, and I'm no expert on black powder firearms. Looking for some quick web-info on militia weapons in the 18th century, I found the following with regard to a military crest: These symbolize the traditional cooperation between the Regular Army and the Reserve Components. The musket with the bayonet symbolizes the Regular Army. Early military muskets (as do modern military rifles) utilized bayonets. The musket without the bayonet symbolizes the militia (now the Reserve Components). Militiamen carried smoothbore and rifled hunting muskets that could not bear bayonets. The rifled muskets of the militia played prominent roles at local battles such as Blackstocks Farm and Cowpens.
How well the Nat'l Guard fulfills this role, I really can't say, because I know nothing about the Guard. I have a feeling it's still too centralized of a command structure to fulfill the intent of the Constitution. Still, a 'well regulated milita' doesn't consist of a bunch of unconnected private gun owners and target shooting enthusiasts...it inherently requires coordination, organization, and mandatory military training for its members.
As to another interesting point, the 2nd Amendment is truly directed towards military style weapons like M16s and AKs and perhaps even the Barrett and small artillery pieces. It's not specifically directed towards weapons for hunting or even personal protection. Guns in the 18th century which were used en masse on the battlefield-muskets-were not useful as hunting weapons. Hunting was done with rifles, which were heinously slow to reload (had to hammer the bullet into the barrel every time you loaded), and blunderbuss/shotguns. These rifles were used to great effect by jager troops, sort of like our scout-snipers of today, but only as an adjunct to the main mass of battlefield troops armed with the equivalent of assault rifles. Handguns/pistols were used as personal protection weapons on the battlefield for officers, too...but again, the purpose as framed in the Constitution specifically limits the right to bear arms to that milita/battlefield role.
I think the solution very well might be an amendment to clarify what we as a nation want the 2nd amendment to mean. As it is, the first half of the amendment is roundly ignored by its strongest proponents.
MD
Injuns - check
Rampaging hordes of Buffalo - check
Evil empires (Britain and it's Canadian stooges) - check (check twice in the case of Britian)
Anti-2nd Amendment Liberal activisits and their gov/judiciary ilk - working on it...
Rampaging hordes of Buffalo - check
Evil empires (Britain and it's Canadian stooges) - check (check twice in the case of Britian)
Anti-2nd Amendment Liberal activisits and their gov/judiciary ilk - working on it...
PonySoldier said:
Nor does the police have any legal responsibility to protect you or your property.
"It's not specifically directed towards weapons for hunting or even personal protection."
MD
Not to assume what our forefathers were thinking, however a fair amount of the frontier population was armed for these 2 purposes since one couldn't run down to the local grocery store and the locals didn't like are intruding on their land. So perhaps they are not addressed because they were assumed.
MD
Not to assume what our forefathers were thinking, however a fair amount of the frontier population was armed for these 2 purposes since one couldn't run down to the local grocery store and the locals didn't like are intruding on their land. So perhaps they are not addressed because they were assumed.
That's certainly a possibility...I actually tend to agree with you. But the purpose of the amendment was truly to ensure that the populace had a military option to make the gov't think twice about tyranny.PonySoldier said:
In any case, I really do think clarification and update are important...like it's been said, it's a living document. Then again, we have to ensure that the Constitution remains the guarantor of our freedoms, and not a means by which to restrict them. That's what we have federal laws for.
I'll wager that I know more about the US than you do about the UK...clancy98 said:
Still, it's good to see that you see your government being as much a threat as much of the rest of the world does.
So many tangents...so little time. The bottom line is that banning the Barrett was a B.S. feelgood waste of time meant to salvage the relevance of a simpleminded cause and it's political proponents.
llkoolkeg said:
Far more people will die in the US choking to death on chicken bones in a year than the Barrett will ever kill... especially considering it's legal to own in a number of other states.
llkoolkeg said:
As was the "Assault Weapons" Ban.
PonySoldier said:
You mean the "Scary-Looking Semi-Auto Weapons" Ban.
Because you could assasinate anyone you wanted from a mile away. You wouldnt even need to stalk the person and wait for a clear shot... you could shoot through people, cars, buildings. I can understand why they are banning them, but I cant see how thats actually going to stop someone from getting a .50 cal, one way or another.mack said:At least i admitted that i never shot one, I could have just lied and told you i had one.
There not for dear hunting, i was laying the sarcasim on heavy there, they are for target shooting and enthusists. People like them and they have a better record than any other gun.
I have a 30 ot 6, much more power than a 30 30 but not any where near that thing!
edit: Give me a valid reason to ban this gun and why it would make sense please. And its in our constitution.
MikeD said:
Nothing strikes fear in the liberal heart more than a white, southern, Red-State, fried food eating, male armed with a scary-looking Barrett....
We will never all agree on that, unfortunately. The larger 2nd amendment debate was meanwhile busily chasing its tail just like the various pot threads.MikeD said:
Is there a Supreme Court ruling that defines the scope of the 2nd Amendment?llkoolkeg said:
If not, someone needs to push a case up that will get one, and help clear up the issues for the time being. Great thing is that a SC ruling can be changed with the times, too, yet it leaves the Constitution intact. I'm thinking that's more practical than a consitutional change, which would be kind of a nightmare to do...
MD
HOLY ****! I can't believe we didn't all realize this! you are so enlightened, thanks so much.llkoolkeg said:
As for my knowledge about the UK, you're right. I have no motivation whatsoever to know anything about you or your place of origin. Fortunately, I see that as a reason to keep my giant mouth shut when people are talking about something I dont know anything about. But obviously its different for you?
You're flaming the wrong person...clancy98 said:
The UK... is that the imperialist nation on which, at one time not so long ago, the sun never set... and now is pretty much confined to one small island off the coast of France where they can't even bring the IRA under control?
That UK?
That UK?
Did you mean can or can't?N8 said:
fluff said:
can'T as in can NOT
Certainly most of the current debate centers on local gun control v. State gun control v. Federal control and then 2nd Amendment interpretation. As for SC rulings, I'm sure they exist in regard to some of this.MikeD said:
N8 said:
Nor do I expect them to do so, it is mine and I will do whatever I feel is needed to ensure the safety and sanctity of home, hearth and family.
Are you on crank or anabolic steroids? That might explain your wild lashing out at friend and foe alike! You are frankly not qualified to comment on my state of enlightenment anyways.clancy98 said:
Right now, I'd like to break my foot off in your a$$ for lacking the common sense to follow your own advice, presumably intended for fluff!
Don't mention it.N8 said:
Good 2nd Amendment stuff here: http://www.brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/index.htm
He argues against a "living document" interp. of the contstitution (different than what Syadasti and I meant, in broader terms, by living document), but also argues for an amendment to "flesh out" the 2nd. I found it an interesting read.
He argues against a "living document" interp. of the contstitution (different than what Syadasti and I meant, in broader terms, by living document), but also argues for an amendment to "flesh out" the 2nd. I found it an interesting read.
Good link... thx!MikeD said:
MikeD said:
cool.
next time i visit the states i wanna get me one of those neat m1 tanks, or a nuke suitcase.
Actually, it is not. Why do all gun crazy american's think this?mack said:
The right to bear arms to overthrow the government if what is in the constitution....In case the states were not too fond of the Union afterwards. It was another check and balance for the colonies.
No where does it guarantee you the right to use an anti-material sniper rifle (and that is what this is intended for...think engine blocks on moving vehicles)
All the wacko conservatives are against the living tree apprach, because they know common sense will prevail in the end.MikeD said: