Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 05:01 pm
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...
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 05:02 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 05:56 pm
The argument that you must be able to use something simply doesn't stack up against the Second Amendment. If I want to own an elephant gun just because it is beautiful and looks good over the mantle or because it has sentimental value, it does not follow that I should expect to be able to legally shoot an elephant in my lifetime. In fact, none of the guns in our house have ever been used to shoot anything other than targets in a structured firing range.

Banning a weapon in one state, however, makes little sense if anyone is planning to use a weapon for illegal purposes. Criminals do not usually purhase their weapons legally. Washington DC has the toughest gun laws in the country and one of the highest gun crime rates.

OE is right, though, that there are classes of weapons that must remain in control of the military and would not be appropriate for the average U.S. citizen. An intercontinental ballistic missile would certainly head that list.

I'm not vouching for the accuracy of this site:
http://www.gvps.org/weapon.htm
but it looks like the statutory list of illegal weapons in Texas, or weapons that are illegal under certain circumstances. I believe it is pretty consistent with the laws regulating firearms and weapons in most states.

So it's all in a matter of degrees. Does a 50mm gun constitute a sufficient risk to the public that it should be issued only with special permits or not allowed at all? It does seem the capability of this weapon does put it on a par with machine guns or live grenades with grenade launchers that most of us are not allowed to own.

Weaponry has advanced to the point that the citizens of the free world are again vulnerable to whomever controls the military. Neverthless, should the U.S. ever be invaded by a foreign power, I think all those deer rifles and shotguns would become a significant factor.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:06 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
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?

Should the country become a dictatorship, more likely the former two, as in the Tienanmen Square massacre, when the soldiers shot down peaceful demonstrators to enforce the will of the oligarchs. Perhaps government officials in some cases, if their involvement were direct enough. It is quite telling that you "don't get" founding principles of your country.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:09 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
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...

Should the country become a dictatorship, many people who did such things would no longer be criminals, in any real sense, as when American patriots resisted General Gage's men in Boston, Lexington, and Concord, or poured tea into Boston Harbor.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:09 pm
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"?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:14 pm
old europe wrote:
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.

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.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:18 pm
old europe wrote:
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"?

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.

"...when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

-- Declaration
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:23 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.


I didn't want to give an argument for disarming the populace. Of course that's what I said on the last page,

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


and I might add that I don't intend to argue in favor of banning all weapons and collecting all guns here. I don't know where you get that idea from, and how I have offended you.

Neither have I been pointing out "every exception, and potential failure mode", but if you could point out how you misread my posts to conclude such I'd be able to clarify that misunderstanding.

I'm sorry my posts bore you, but obviously they bore you to a degree that you don't even bother reading them, because otherwise you wouldn't have failed so utterly to get what I was saying.

And just stating that "The intent of the Founders is clear" is of course a non-argument. If it's clear, explain why you think so. If you can't, it's obviously not clear.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:30 pm
If it's Wednesday, I must be in Idaho. (kinda looks like Montana though)
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:32 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:33 pm
not to worry cjhsa, it's still legal to own fertilizer plants, (is there a fed building near here?)
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:38 pm
Was that as an answer to my question, Dys?
0 Replies
 
Instigate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:56 pm
old europe wrote:
But how would The People be able to do so in 2005?


Something akin to the Iraq insurgency I would imagine. Explosives and Snipers. Guerrilla warfare.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 07:11 pm
Well, the difference is that to the Iraqis (or insurgents) those are foreign troops, whereas we're talking about the safeguards the Founding Fathers thought necessary to prevent one's own government to turn against its citizens.

At the moment I can't recall a case were a coup d'etat from the Army hasn't been successful, in terms of armed resistence from the citizens....

My point basically is: whenever a modern nation's Army would turn against their own people (which the Founding Fathers explicitly tried to prevent) resistence would be futile. So if you would like the 2. Amendment to have any effect at all in that regard, it's obviously necessary to arm the people better.
0 Replies
 
CodeBorg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 07:19 pm
An oldie but goodie ...

Pat Elliot(Texas CD10 Candidate) Speech on Constitution
Quote:
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!


What is it to be a citizen ... and what is it to be a subject?


.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 07:56 pm
Huh. Interesting.

The only time the Japanese did fire on the continental US we didn't even bother to return fire.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:12 pm
old europe wrote:
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?

Just before the American Revolution, Boston was occupied by British General Thomas Gage's armed troops, but the people harassed them, and harassed them, and burned down the houses of any American who cooperated, and effectively made the troops stationed there completely impotent and ineffective, even according to Gage's letters home. Unless the dictatorship is willing to shoot down scores of civilians in the streets on a regular basis, there is a lot that the people can do. Even in China, there is a certain amount of successful dissent, particularly because of the difficulty of censoring the Internet effectively. I think that a sufficiently determined populace might be capable of accomplishing something. Anyway, it's the principle of the thing that counts.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:22 pm
Everyone needs a nukular weapon to protect themself and hunt deer.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:53 pm
Sorry, I may have missed it: has anyone explained why someone would need a .50 caliber rifle?

Quote:
"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.

Oh, I see: the rifle can be used to hunt the beautiful but elusive boeing Americanus, the North American commercial aircraft.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Boeing_postwar_comm/Aero20G11.jpg
"IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/12/2024 at 12:22:14