A DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS

I 've seen the cool little .22 caliber belt-fed machine guns,
mounted as tail guns, on motorcycles. I don t know whether thay r functional.

what would the purpose of something like that be?
Ill pass Dave, lest I be tempted to catch the attention of someone whose just cut me off.

Did the 2nd A ever foresee the extension of its "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" to include permission to arm vehicles?

hopefully this doesn't cause FM to much trauma

deer on the snowmobile trails at Gordon's Park, Manitoulin Island, Ontario, Canada

What you want is a deer-proof 007 James Bond Aston Martin DB5 but the anti-deer feature would be a state-of-the-art stun gun and a nice Tempur-pedic mattress that shoots out from under the car to catch the disabled animal. A door on the dash would open, serving up a martini stirred, not shaken, to calm you down, then you could go take a nap with the deer. (Sorry, for a secret agent, Bond didn't know that shaking bruises the gin).

good thing they didnt come up, I might have been disturbed at any deer that got away.

Maybe he wanted to drink bruised jin b4 sleeping with the deer.

Yeah, judging from the fact that thay had armed vehicles then,
e.g. battleships and guys with primitive shotguns defending
stage coaches from hiwaymen like Dick Turpin.


Note also that there were NO POLICE back then (neither here, nor in England).
U were EXPECTED to attend to your own defense.




David

You seem to be waffling about your support of unconditional armament.

It is worth noting that in Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England, he notes that people are allowed to arm themselves, according to their degree. Early American constitutional scholars pointed out that the second amendment was intended to prevent the exclusion of anyone (in those days, meaning any adult, white male) from participation in the militia. It is a fantasy of the modern gun lunatic that the intent were ever to allow people to keep and carry in public any arm they wanted.

Blackstone wrote:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Note that people can only have arms suitable to their condition and degree, and that that right is subject to statute. It is upon this basis that English Parliaments have taken the right to restrict arms possession, and have transferred these rights to police forces and standing armies (there was a provision of the "Golden Revolution" of 1689 which prohibited the maintenance of standing armies by the monarch without the consent of Parliament).

Notably, St. George Tucker, writing in 1803, pointed out that the effect of the second amendment was to remove this restriction on the right to bear arms based upon one's condition and degree, and specifically denied anyone's right to restrict participation in the militia. Contrary to the ravings of the gun nuts, Tucker does not confirm any notional right of unrestricted ownership of arms, nor does he ignore the right of the Congress as granted in Article One, Section Eight to provide for the arming of the militia. When the gun nuts crow about Heller, they ignore that the ruling allows one to keep arms in the home for self-defense, but that the Court affirmed the constitutionality of Federal restrictions on firearms.

Not simply Blackstone and Tucker, but Hobbes and Locke all refer to the right to keep arms as a right of self-defense in one's home. None of them assert or even infer that the right extends to the ownership of any arm one chooses, or to bear arms in public other than in the context of an organized military force, such as a militia.

Really? Where did I go rong?
I am 100% confident that the Founders woud have indignantly
rejected the thinking of the NRA, because it is giving away the store,
in terms of personal freedom -- led by a Quisling instead of a Churchill.

Simply stated, the Founders woud have said that civilian possession of guns
was beyond the reach of government jurisdiction
(the same as any citizen 's choice of favorite color)
because:
1) the citizens needed guns for personal defense
(dreaded police not existing, neither here nor in England) from the violence of man or beast

2 ) the citizens needed guns for hunting game for food

3) the citizens needed guns for overthrowing the government AGAIN and AGAIN.
(Thomas Jefferson was very explicit about that.)
The Founders took that very seriously and said so; it was on their minds and in their writings.

This spirit pervaded the minds of the Founders of the Republic of Texas in 1836,
who were intensely explicit about it when thay put a provision in the Constitution
of the Republic of Texas saying that:
"anybody and everybody is expressly authorized to form militia
to overthrow the government of Texas."





David

LOL -- yes, I've never suspected farmerman of being anything but sexually conventional and he doesn't have to confirm that! Actually, I think in the last two Bond films, Bond reverses the martini method (as I remember).

That 's what happens when u lose Sean Connery.

I see where this thread is going...it is famerman's fault for not having armour piercing cyanide tipped 50 cal to spray the road in front of him as a precautionary measure...Well, farmerman ?? I think you owe us an explanation !!

You couldnt handle the truth.

Well, actually he's drinking vodka martini's without the large range of herbs of say, Bombay Gin, and the added air bubbles from shaking unlikely changes the taste of a really pure vodka. In the books, Bond sometimes orders a mix of gin and vodka, medium dry, and shaken. Shaking, of course, makes it colder faster. When I live in Hollywood, one of my friends who I live with while attending UCLA had a martini "shaker" which was an hourglass shape. The ice got trapped in the small funnel as one tipped the mixer upside-down and right-side-up (actually, both top and bottom were identical). It made the best martini's I have ever had and although it made them very cold, it did not shake bubbles into the gin.

Actually, that would be an array of three pitchforks installed so they are jutting out from under the fender. Trouble is, he might have already done away with a few pedestrians, not to mention puncturing tires in the car ahead of him at the stop light. We don't want him to go to prison.

Damn ! He has seen right through me ! No truth handler, I.

Now you are just being confusing.

Wow, I hadda hunt this thread down in the dusty archives and found that , in my last encounter , it was the same time of year. (about). This time, Mrs F and I were in the car and a deer was running along side the car in a field that had a high bank on either side of the road.
The deer just bolted and lept onto the road just as we approached. swerved the car TOWARD the deer this time and he cleared the car by a few feet.WHEW.
Rule to avoid deer in th road. Steer towards where the deer had emerged from because it will always try to jump out of the way and if you steer away from its approach, you will probably steer into it.

Makes total sense.