Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

parados wrote:

Really? You can own a gun in both England and Australia

Not without having to jump through way too many hoops, and nowhere near easily.

That totally defeats the entire purpose of our second ammendment, which is to provide a final bulwark against governments should they ever go out of control. If the government can control who owns guns, it's pretty hard to believe that the people can control the government.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

I am strongly against banning those guns that we have the right to have (automatic rifles with AP ammo).

I'm OK with banning grenade launchers.

I'm not. At least it's not obvious that there's any reason to be OK with that. Granted there has to be some line, but I think there's a reasonable way to determine where that line ought to be, and it's a bit higher than that.

The rule should be, that anything which Uncle Sam is cool with Iran or Osama Bin Laden having, he should be OK with me having.

That's pretty simple. Osama could have all the semiauto rifles, all the machine guns, all the mortars, all the howitzers that ever he wanted, and Uncle Sam would not give a rat's ass or, at least he would not be moved to action by the mere fact of Osama OWNING such stuff; Osama would have to commit some crime with one of those to get Uncle Sam's attention.

One thing I'd like to be able to have in actual fact and which there is no rational reason to be illegal is silencers. Having to use ear protectors is a big hassle and, in fact, the latest generation of Russian military rifles come with dog-whistle type silencers which cut out enough of muzzle blast to eliminate hearing damage. In other words, Russians simply came to the realization that having everybody who ever served in Russia's military walking around halfway deaf was not a cool thing.

Likewise, the first minute Osama ever starts owning or trying to own atom bombs, nerve gas, biological weaponry, or shoulder fired AA missiles, Uncle Sam will go after him, simply for owning the ****.

I would therefore be totally happy to forswear the idea of me ever owning such and will unfailingly report anybody I ever see making efforts to acquire any such **** to the appropriate authorities.

Of course, Osama can own howitzers the same way that antebellum southern gentlemen used to own them and, assuming he doesn't USE them to commit crimes, Uncle Sam will never give a rat's ass.

At the very least, if ownership of howitzers is going to be banned, it ought to be on a state by state basis and by citizenship committees of some sort, and not by the federal government. I can understand for instance why the city fathers of Los Angelas would not want the crips or bloods owning howitzers. Utah, obviously, is another case. AS I hear it, a lot of Mormons DO in fact own howitzers.

0 Replies

A little weekend plinking with the Nuge. Smile

http://216.223.165.120/JBpics/FANuge.jpg

I think he needs more ammo...

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

parados wrote:

Really? You can own a gun in both England and Australia

Not without having to jump through way too many hoops, and nowhere near easily.

License and registration does NOT equal banned.

Automobiles and boats are licensed and registered. They are not banned.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

That totally defeats the entire purpose of our second ammendment, which is to provide a final bulwark against governments should they ever go out of control. If the government can control who owns guns, it's pretty hard to believe that the people can control the government. (emphasis added)

This is a completely unwarranted statement. First, the IInd amendment reads, in its entirety:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The provision for a well-regulated militia is one the gun-nut fringe like to ignore, because it brings up the issue of who shall regulate the militia. I have already noted and linked Presser versus Illinois, 1886, in which the court held that the IInd amendment constrains the Federal government only, and the states only to the extent that their regulation does not prohibit the bearing of arms in a well-regulated militia. In that opinion, it was held:

Quote:

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress.'

Furthermore, the contention that it were intended to protect the people from government is absurd beyond belief. The constitution cleary states the purposes for which the militia may be called into the service of the government, in Article I, Section 8, which reads, in part:

[Congress shall have the power . . .] To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Which not only does not provide for the militia as a body to defy the government, but a body to aid the government to execute the laws of the union.

It is nice to see, though, that some among the gun-nut fringe are willing to state that they see an armed populace as a potential insurrectionary body. By that logic, all supporters of the IInd amendment as interpreted in the manner which Gunga Din proposes, should applaud the Iraqi insurrectionists as defending their inalienable right to take up arms against a foreign invader.

0 Replies

I think that just sums up the fact that Illinois has been filled with communist bastards for over 100 years. This map is old. NE now is a shall issue state.

http://www.packing.org/gs/all_usa_map.gif

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I think that just sums up the fact that Illinois has been filled with communist bastards for over 100 years.

Oddly enough, that was one of the rejected slogans for the Illinois quarter design.

Illinois: filled with communist bastards for over 100 years!

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

This map is old. NE now is a shall issue state.

So is Kansas.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
That totally defeats the entire purpose of our second ammendment, which is to provide a final bulwark against governments should they ever go out of control. If the government can control who owns guns, it's pretty hard to believe that the people can control the government. (emphasis added)

This is a completely unwarranted statement. First, the IInd amendment reads, in its entirety:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

... blah, blah, blah.....

You clearly do not know how the English language works or what the second ammendment is about either one, so I'm going to explain both of them to you.

The statement contains a main clause, and a subordinate clause, the later being a motivation, and the former describing the law.

The clause describing motivation is basically irrelevant; it's the part which says that:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

which is the law, and it would take a constitutional ammendment to change it.

The statement could as easily read thus:

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 clause about the bird is irrelevant. Somebody could even produce documented evidence of a wet bird actually flying at night, and even that would not matter.

All of that of course is aside from the fact that, as I stated, the founding fathers were unanimous in describing the main motivation for the ammendment as being that of providing the people with a final power over governments, and the recent court decisions on the subject have in fact mentioned this.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I think he needs more ammo...

Is that the little 223 caliber NATO squad machinegun?

0 Replies

IS there a "UN gun ban" or is it just more uberrecht propaganda?

If there is one, how do I join?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
I am against banning any gun that works by expelling kinetic energy projectiles.

I'm not sure what you are for oralloy. You did say this earlier about the banning of sawed off shotguns.

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:
In 1939, an appeal was made to the Supreme court by a representative of the Justice Department after an idictment was quashed against two men for transporting a sawed-off shotgun. In The United States versus Miller, the Court held:

Quote:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

This case can be read at this Findlaw page.

A good ruling.

I wish they'd start enforcing it.

Note this part of my previous post:

First, [b]the Miller ruling never concluded that short-barreled shotguns were inappropriate[/b]. They merely said it had not been established that they were appropriate, and sent it back to the lower courts. Had proceedings continued, Miller's lawyers could have tried to make a case that such weapons were covered by the Second Amendment. In addition, simply [b]acknowledging that the Second Amendment doesn't cover a type of weapon doesn't mean that I want it banned[/b]. For instance, the Second Amendment does not cover fully functional civil war cannons. But I would object quite strenuously to any attempt to restrict my ability to own one.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
Please show me the place where the only gun allowed is a stick and some sand.

England, and Australia.

Really? You can own a gun in both England and Australia

Not much of a gun, though. Only what equates to my "stick and some sand" analogy.

parados wrote:

Over 650,000 registered shotguns in England.

How many assault rifles are legally held by English citizens?

parados wrote:

Australian laws seem to be similar to English laws. Guns are not banned.

That is incorrect. Most guns are banned there.

parados wrote:

Registration is required but guns aren't restricted to only a stick and some sand.

Yes they are.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

License and registration does NOT equal banned.

That depends on the details of the licensing and registration.

If they make the process of getting the license and registration so burdensome that no one can manage to comply, it is a ban.

And if they refuse to give a license and registration to someone unless the government feels that they "need" a gun, that will amount to a ban for most people (who will be judged to not "need" a gun).

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

IS there a "UN gun ban"

There are a bunch of UN-related diplomats who would like to create a global treaty that would ban civilian ownership of most types of guns.

So far, they have been unsuccessful (thanks to John Bolton). But they haven't given up.

dlowan wrote:

If there is one, how do I join?

It is not something that you join. It is a holocaust that would be inflicted on you.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

dlowan wrote:
IS there a "UN gun ban"

There are a bunch of UN-related diplomats who would like to create a global treaty that would ban civilian ownership of most types of guns.

So far, they have been unsuccessful (thanks to John Bolton). But they haven't given up.

Translation: No, there is no UN gun ban.

oralloy wrote:

dlowan wrote:
If there is one, how do I join?

It is not something that you join. It is a holocaust that would be inflicted on you.

Ummm... ok Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

Translation: No, there is no UN gun ban.

That's only because brighter and better people than the UN gun-grab weenies remain vigilant and prevent it from happening.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

JustanObserver wrote:

Translation: No, there is no UN gun ban.

That's only because brighter and better people than the UN gun-grab weenies remain vigilant and prevent it from happening.

That reminds me of a joke.

You know...the one where the two fellas are sitting together in a compartment on a train in the English countryside.

One of the fellas sits, white, shaking, sweating, gripping the arms of his seat rigidly, and continually making the most terrible facial grimaces.

The other cannot help stealing glances at him.....although constrained by English etiquette from appearing to notice anything.

Eventually, after an hour or more, concerned that the man is terribly ill, the second man asks if he is all right.

"Oh certainly" says the first man, between grimaces.

"But you seem in pain?"

"No, no...been doing this for years....I am only doing it to keep the herds of vicious elephants away."

"But we don't HAVE herds of vicious elephants in England!"

"Yes...works well, doesn't it?

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

Translation: No, there is no UN gun ban.

Correct. John Bolton has prevented you freedom-haters from creating a UN gun ban.

But I suspect you'll keep trying.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
JustanObserver wrote:

Translation: No, there is no UN gun ban.

That's only because brighter and better people than the UN gun-grab weenies remain vigilant and prevent it from happening.

That reminds me of a joke.

You know...the one where the two fellas are sitting together in a compartment on a train in the English countryside.

One of the fellas sits, white, shaking, sweating, gripping the arms of his seat rigidly, and continually making the most terrible facial grimaces.

The other cannot help stealing glances at him.....although constrained by English etiquette from appearing to notice anything.

Eventually, after an hour or more, concerned that the man is terribly ill, the second man asks if he is all right.

"Oh certainly" says the first man, between grimaces.

"But you seem in pain?"

"No, no...been doing this for years....I am only doing it to keep the herds of vicious elephants away."

"But we don't HAVE herds of vicious elephants in England!"

"Yes...works well, doesn't it?

There is ample evidence that the freedom haters are trying to create a global treaty that would ban civilian ownership of most guns.

0 Replies

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know