Banned in California!

Brandon9000 wrote:

The idea that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is only to provide guns for hunting and target practice is wrong. Here's what the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention had to say:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington

I don't get it.

So at whom would you shoot with these weapons? Police, soldiers, government officials?

Folks do that now. We call 'em criminals and tend to punish them severely. I'm guessing this isn't what Washington had in mind...

Understood, Brandon. But I've been asking this before, without getting an answer: what exactly are "sufficient arms and ammunition"?

Just think about this: there'd be a coup d'etat in the US. The military takes over (think South America).

Now, the 2. Amendment basically says that people should be well armed (if you read the first part of the Amendment as an intention, not as a qualifier), enough so to maintain independence from their own government.

This would mean that it grants the right to own tanks, nuclear missiles etc. - because what else would guarantee independence facing, for instance, the United States Army. All citizens armed with guns? Hardly.

So Brandon, do you think it would make a difference if everybody (or nobody) had a gun when your own government decides to disperse a demonstration with tanks? What are "sufficient arms and ammunition"?

You have by no means given an argument for disarming the populace. The people who founded my country wanted The People to be able to resist an oppressive government by force. A step in that direction would, in general, be a step in the right direction. Don't bore me by pointing out every exception, and potential failure mode. The intent of the Founders is clear.

But no, at the moment I'm still thinking about the pros and cons of a general weapon ban...

Your question is irrelevant. The Founders made it crystal clear that they wanted the people to be able to throw out a bad government by force. I'm not going to play your plodding, imperceptive game of tying down every detail, and defining every term. The people who created our government intended us to throw it out if it started to stink too much.

But how would The People be able to do so in 2005?

In an article in the May/June, 2001, Texas State Rifle Association Magazine shows how close we came to having pitch battles on our homeland during WWII and reads as follows: In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, and most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans---men who had fought each other at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another.

Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question.

"You are right," he told the Americans. "We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." Please keep in mind that an armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject!

Brandon9000 wrote:

Your question is irrelevant. The Founders made it crystal clear that they wanted the people to be able to throw out a bad government by force. I'm not going to play your plodding, imperceptive game of tying down every detail, and defining every term. The people who created our government intended us to throw it out if it started to stink too much.

No way you're gonna tell me if my question is irrelevant or not.

I agree of course that the Founding Fathers had the intention of securing stability, by means of enabling The People "to throw out a bad government by force", as you're saying. I'm with you, in case you don't notice.

But how would The People be able to do so in 2005?

"Clearly, with the range that it has, and the impact capability that it has, it would put an airliner or an airplane at risk if it hit that plane," adds Kelly.

Could the gun be used by a terrorist to shoot down a commercial airliner?

"It'd be very difficult. It would if it were a tactic that were even remotely possible," says Barrett. "Then our military, who happens to use the rifle, would be training their troops to do such."

But in his sales brochures, Barrett advertises the .50-caliber as a weapon that can take planes down.