0
   

Guns and the Supreme Court

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 03:01 pm
McTag wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
While you guys were going on and on about this subject yesterday
I went out a purchased myself a real nice pre-ban Type 56S AK47 Cool

Have a great week !!


You have that in common with Osama bin Laden, then.


No, not really.

OBL, has full auto military AK47s - probably Russian made. OBL is often pictured with a Krinkov.
Do you have a clue what that is ?? Of course you don't.

My Type 56S and 56S-1 are Chinese made semi automatic copies of the original Russian AK.
Chinese AKs have thicker stamped steel receivers and heavier chrome lined 16" barrels.

.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 03:15 pm
We have never questioned Laden 's taste in ordnance.
( Indeed, he was fiendishly clever, in the service of evil. )



While u r pondering my question, Mr. McTag
about your use of the illegal gun ( or your pacifistic avoidance thereof )
let us bear in mind that both in America and in England
until around the First World War, it was perfectly legal
for any citizen or subject to be fully armed, including machineguns.
( Correct me if I am rong. )

I call upon u to bear witness, Mr. McTag,
that the history of England is that
during the years leading up to that time,
England was NOT awash with blood in the streets
and bullets were NOT flying thru the English air
as thick as mosquitos in a swamp; England was in a state of domestic tranquility,
as WW I raged on
and crime was not significantly higher than it is now.

The same was true of America.




David
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 03:27 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
McTag wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
While you guys were going on and on about this subject yesterday
I went out a purchased myself a real nice pre-ban Type 56S AK47 Cool

Have a great week !!


You have that in common with Osama bin Laden, then.

I doubt if Mr Kalashnikov had American hobbyists in mind
when he designed his assault rifle.

True; he is a communist and he was fighting for communism.
Serves him right: he never got any royalities ( based on what I 've heard ).
He 'd have been about as rich a multibillionaire as Bill Gates.

U r correct that such events as I have set forth in my scenario
occur infrequently; it is also true that life is full of surprizes
and some of the strangest things unexpectedly happen.

What wud u have done,
regarding the illegal gun, Mr. McTag ?




David


I'd have wasted the motherfu***rs.
(Was that the right answer?)

I never said I was a pacifist, or even particularly law-abiding by inclination.

Thanks for the chance to use the imaginary gun on all these imaginary bad guys, in such dramatic circumstances too. I feel really good about myself. These guys had it coming to 'em.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2008 05:32 pm
McTag wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
McTag wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
While you guys were going on and on about this subject yesterday
I went out a purchased myself a real nice pre-ban Type 56S AK47 Cool

Have a great week !!


You have that in common with Osama bin Laden, then.

I doubt if Mr Kalashnikov had American hobbyists in mind
when he designed his assault rifle.

True; he is a communist and he was fighting for communism.
Serves him right: he never got any royalities ( based on what I 've heard ).
He 'd have been about as rich a multibillionaire as Bill Gates.

U r correct that such events as I have set forth in my scenario
occur infrequently; it is also true that life is full of surprizes
and some of the strangest things unexpectedly happen.

What wud u have done,
regarding the illegal gun, Mr. McTag ?




David


Quote:
I'd have wasted the motherfu***rs.
(Was that the right answer?)

Yes.
( I m inferring that u shot them with the Webley,
not hit them with a legally licensed and registered chair. )

Quote:
I never said I was a pacifist,
or even particularly law-abiding by inclination.

Yes; nor did I accuse u of that, either.

Quote:
Thanks for the chance to use the imaginary gun on all these imaginary bad guys,
in such dramatic circumstances too. I feel really good about myself. These guys had it coming to 'em.

U got 'em GOOD.
Reminds me of the Death Wish movies; Bronson wuda been proud of u.




David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2008 10:22 pm
McTag wrote:
Some people are frightened of their shadows. A story from the paper:

A British couple on holiday in Florida, lost their way while motoring and it was getting dark.
They went to the door of a nearby house and knocked, to ask where they were, and to get directions.
The owner of the house, being frightened, fired through the door without opening it and the holidaymaker was killed.

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.


Sounds like a clear case of manslaughter to me. Maybe even second degree murder, but at least manslaughter.

There was a message of yours I meant to respond to, but never did. Trying to find it.....
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2008 10:31 pm
McTag wrote:
Thomas wrote:
McTag wrote:
If I may simplify it, it is saying that he believes the militia (modern equivalent, the police or the National Guard) should be armed, and individuals should not be armed, (except when necessary for self-defence).

No, you're misinterpreting Adams to say what you want him to say. If you go back to his sentence, you will notice that he is saying nothing about whether individuals should be armed or not. He is saying that the manner in which armed individuals use their weapons should be regulated by law.


I went back to his sentence. He is saying that citizens with guns should only use them as directed by the militia, or privately in self-defence.

I wasn't making a point, I was only trying to bring the context up to date and simplify the language a bit.
It's difficult to put "militia" into a modern context, as Set has counselled me.


The Swiss have a modern militia that fits our Constitutional requirements perfectly.

I doubt the Swiss had our Constitution in mind when they planned their militia, but just by coincidence, they ended up with a perfect match to what our Founding Fathers wanted us to have here in America.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2008 01:21 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Today, state militias already have the weapons. They only need bodies.


Not quite. Today there are no state militias
(and the states violate our rights by not having them).

Not exactly.

If James Madison had intended those militia
to be state government militia
( such as referred to in Article I Section 8 )
he 'd NOT have chosen the words of art " well regulated militia "
which were the DIAMETRICAL OPPOSITE of such militia.

In the parlance of the times,
and of earlier centuries, he 'd have called them " selected militia. "

His choice of language indicated his intention
( adopted by Congress ) that the private citizens who were armed,
can continue to organize themselves freely into units of militia
( in vu of the fact that there were NO POLICE
and there was strength in numbers which was needed, occasionally ).




Witness the fact that nowhere is there any reference to
a " well regulated Navy," nor a " well regulated Treasury Dept. "
nor a " well regulated Senate " nor to ANY other entity of government.

" Well regulated militia " meant private militia, but properly self disciplined,
not boisterous, and drilled well enuf to be effective in battle.




David



A select militia is one that only encompasses a portion of the citizenry, instead of all of the citizenry. The idea is that a small group can be trained to a much higher degree of skill than the general citizenry -- if the entire populace devoted too much time to military training, society wouldn't be able to produce anything.


Every time I've heard the Framers use the terms "well-regulated militia" they were referring to a militia that had the training and skill necessary to fight as an effective unit (as opposed to fighting as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals).

Both terms can be seen in this excerpt from Federalist 29, where Alexander Hamilton argues that only a select militia can manage the training necessary to become a well-regulated militia:

    [list][quote]"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." "But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." [URL=http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm]http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm[/URL][/quote]
[/list]

I don't see any evidence that they meant well-regulated to exclude government control, or meant government control to extend only to select militias.


In the end, the Framers didn't take Hamilton up on his proposal for a select militia, and instead made all white males of military age members of the militia. But despite this, they also made the militia a government-controlled body.

Note the law they passed to organize the first militia:

http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/UniformMilitia1790.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 09:30:19