gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 02:53 pm
Setanta wrote:
What part part of well regulated don't you understand . . .


What part of the English language are you having trouble with?

The ammendment could as easily read:

Quote:

Due to the known fact that a wet bird never flies at night, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


The first part of the thing is a motivation; the second part is the law. It could read as I noted and you might even provide documented proof of a wet bird flying at night and it STILL wouldn't matter; the law would be the same until it got changed, in this case by a constitutional ammendment.

The subordinate clause is basically irrelevant, other than as a historical note.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 02:55 pm
Setanta wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Sorry, I may have missed it: has anyone explained why someone would need a .50 caliber rifle?

Sure, to resist and overthrow the government if it becomes a dictatorship.


There you go again, Brandon . . . living in a dream world. If the government ever actually were become a dictatorship, you thesis would be laughably hilarious, were it not for the specter of you splattered all over the driveway while your family looks on in horror.

If the government ever come for you, they'll have lots of personnel, in kevlar vests and helmets, with machine pistols, tear-gas grenade lauchers, armored personnel carriers, helicopters . . .

So you're gonna stop 'em with your .50 cal rifle, right? Pathetic . . .

1. Resistance to a despotic government was certainly an overt part of the Founding Fathers' motovation for writing the Second Amendment. This was what they wanted and intended.

2. Your certainty that there is no scenario in which citizens might not resist a vastly superior armed force intent on suppressing them is incorrect. There are numerous examples in history of the populace overthrowing a government under these conditions, including our own revolution. Ghandi defeated a powerful occupier with no guns at all.

3. But.....even if what you say were true, it would certainly not be an argument for taking the peoples' guns away and making them even less strong.

I agree with the Founding Fathers. What a mark of disgrace for me.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 02:56 pm
Re: Banned in California!
cjhsa wrote:


...banned in California...


I get these headhunters calling and sending me emails about jobs in California which pay $150K and more and they act shocked when I tell them I'm not interested...
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 03:45 pm
cjhsa wrote:
My point is that those who support banning based on caliber don't know what they are talking about.

Are you suggesting that the black-powder, muzzleloading .50 caliber Thompson Omega rifles that you displayed are center fire rifles that can fire a .50 caliber BMG cartridge?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 03:55 pm
gungasnake wrote:
The ammendment could as easily read:

Quote:

Due to the known fact that a wet bird never flies at night, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


The first part of the thing is a motivation; the second part is the law. It could read as I noted and you might even provide documented proof of a wet bird flying at night and it STILL wouldn't matter; the law would be the same until it got changed, in this case by a constitutional ammendment.

The subordinate clause is basically irrelevant, other than as a historical note.

You know nothing about statutory interpretation. A law is to be interpreted so that all of its parts have meaning and nothing is superfluous or irrelevant. If there are two interpretations possible, one that gives meaning to every part of the law and another that doesn't, the former is to be preferred over the latter. In the case of the second amendment, any interpretation that gives effect to the first clause is to be preferred over an interpretation that renders it superfluous, "historical," or merely advisory.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 03:58 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
I agree with the Founding Fathers. What a mark of disgrace for me.


You look so stunning wrapped in that flag, Brandon . . . you ought to have donned it long ago. Let us all stand and sing a rousing chorus of Yankee Doodle . . .
0 Replies
 
ConstitutionalGirl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 03:58 pm
We need those type of guns in Florida.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 04:00 pm
Florida needs to be gently detached from Georgia and Alabama and allowed to slowly, almost imperceptibly, drift away into the Atlantic . . .
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 04:13 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
My point is that those who support banning based on caliber don't know what they are talking about.

Are you suggesting that the black-powder, muzzleloading .50 caliber Thompson Omega rifles that you displayed are center fire rifles that can fire a .50 caliber BMG cartridge?


No, and I'm glad to see you know this (or have at least researched it). I'll bet real money that MOST of the California legislature simply voted FOR an ANTI-GUN bill. Arnold knew what he was doing though. That still doesn't make it right.
0 Replies
 
ConstitutionalGirl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 04:28 pm
Setanta wrote:
Florida needs to be gently detached from Georgia and Alabama and allowed to slowly, almost imperceptibly, drift away into the Atlantic . . .
It would be nice if it driffted to Great Brittian.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 04:31 pm
I believe it would be quickly swallowed by the gulp stream.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 04:56 pm
Quote:
There are numerous examples in history of the populace overthrowing a government under these conditions, including our own revolution. Ghandi defeated a powerful occupier with no guns at all.


Brandon, Brandon, Brandon,

Invoking the name of Ghandi as part of an argument that guns are needed against the government....

I don't even know what to say to that..
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 04:59 pm
her let me get it a whirl---Oy (that's what we say out here in the west for these situations)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 05:11 pm
dyslexia wrote:
I believe it would be quickly swallowed by the gulp stream.


One can only hope, Boss . . .


For all those here who have not wrapped themselves so tightly in the flag as to have covered their ears . . .

No part of the bill of rights, including the second amendment, was written by "the founding fathers." It was a product of the First Congress--anyone in that Congress who was also at the constitutional convention simply represents a coincidence. The twelve amendments proposed were sent to the states over the signature of Frederick Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, the Speaker of the House. The fourth amendment proposed became the second amendment ratified.

Oh daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River, where paradise lay
Well i'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking
The President's Energy Industry buddies have hauled it away . . .
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 05:28 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

You know nothing about statutory interpretation. A law is to be interpreted so that all of its parts have meaning and nothing is superfluous or irrelevant. If there are two interpretations possible, one that gives meaning to every part of the law and another that doesn't, the former is to be preferred over the latter. In the case of the second amendment, any interpretation that gives effect to the first clause is to be preferred over an interpretation that renders it superfluous, "historical," or merely advisory.


A number of competent scholars have gone back and looked at all of the materials bearing on the second ammendment at the time it was written and come to the exact conclusion I do based both upon the obvious English language interpretation and the historical context, and the current judicial interpretation is that the ammendment does indeed confer a right for individuals to own their own weaponry, with no regard as to whether or not they might belong to "militias".

You're flogging a dead horse.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 05:33 pm
flogging a dead horse is preferable to riding one.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 05:34 pm
Well, i don't know why . . . this is getting nowhere, and at least one would have somewhere to sit . . .
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 05:45 pm
America's gun laws are basically ALL unconstitutional since they pretty much all violate the second ammendment which is a basic right. The majority of them are nonsensical for any number of reasons and, basically, the original intent of gun laws which date from around 1937 was to provide federal agents with something to do after the end of prohibition. The intent of gun laws written prior to that was usually to prevent negros, Irish, and others viewed as less than one of Chuck Darwin's "favored races" from owning firearms.]

The stupidity of our present system of laws involving firearms cannot be overstated. Moreover, for leftists who like to worry, there is no lack of dangerous things available in America for them to worry about.

In most parts of the US today, blackpowder arms including muzzleloaders and cap/ball revolvers, i.e. the weapons which everything and everybody ever killed with a firearm prior to 1864 was killed with, are freely available with no legal requirements whatsoever, i.e. they are legally equivalent to slingshots.

Gasoline for Malotov cocktails can be bought everywhere in America with no legal requirements. The energy density of gasoline is much greater than that of dynamite or any sort of smokeless rifle powder.

Modern archery equipment which shoots at 340 fps can be bought everywhere in America with no legal requirements. Hitting a human target at 100 meters with such equipment would be fairly easy and they make no noise.

Bullshit and other forms of nitrogen fertilizer for explosives can be easily bought in America. In the early 1900s a ship loaded with such anchored off one of the small East coast cities of Texas blew up and took half the city with it. The effect was described as similar to a small nuclear weapon.

Axes and knives, favored by Jack the Ripper and Elizabeth Bordon, are still freely available. Jack the Ripper would have laughed himself silly at the idea of gun control laws.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 05:56 pm
I favor 50bmg rifles such as the Barret being legal on general principles. Nonetheless I can't think of a real reason for owning one and I would not recommend the idea to anybody.

There are two reasons anybody might want one, i.e. for a very long range sniper weapon, and for taking on hard targets short of tank armor.

Let's assume a worst possible case in which the UN has invaded the United States and tried to forcibly convert it to I-slam and install Kofi Annan as overlord of North America. There would still be no reason to recommend the 50 BMG rifle to citizens.

One, defeating hard targets with an ultra-high-power rifle is problematical at best. You'd be vastly better off using improvised explosive devices powered by bullshit or other nitrogen sources and triggered with toy airplane controllers or some such.

Two, there are things which make vastly more sense as long range sniper weapons. Something like the ordinary medium-heavy barreled Winchester Coyote rifle in the new 270 WSM caliber would work a lot better for a lot less money and it'd be a hell of a lot easier to carry around.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 07:29 pm
cjhsa wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Are you suggesting that the black-powder, muzzleloading .50 caliber Thompson Omega rifles that you displayed are center fire rifles that can fire a .50 caliber BMG cartridge?


No, and I'm glad to see you know this (or have at least researched it). I'll bet real money that MOST of the California legislature simply voted FOR an ANTI-GUN bill. Arnold knew what he was doing though. That still doesn't make it right.

If those muzzleloaded rifles aren't center fire rifles that can fire a .50 caliber BMG cartridge, then why did you mention them in this thread? After all, the California legislation doesn't ban them.
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 0.03 seconds on 07/12/2024 at 10:26:50