#Bang Bang
32 messages in this thread
Karl,
Ok…in that situation then we do ban military vehicles that are
weapons of destruction from private hands.
When's the last time you saw a private citizen with a fully operational
tank driving down the road?
Jeeps (sporting weapons) sure you see them, but tanks (assault weapons)
nope.
Yea…I know, a bit absurd, but so is the idea that banning certain
types of weapons is somehow or other an infringement on your rights.
The fact is, you can legally arm yourself to the teeth, you just have a
*slightly* limited choice of what weapons to use. Any of the legal weapons
will do the job of protecting yourself however…and after all, isn't that your
main point?
Don
I just read an article in a magazine about a private individual owning and
firing a French 75 cannon from WWI. And, Don, my friend :)…. the
Constitution provides that no one stops me from owning and driving a tank
down the road, should I choose to do so. It is within my mandate as a
member of the militia, for one. It is also within my right under the 2nd
Amendment. Should people be allowed to own fully operational tanks? I
don't have to say, but to stop them from doing so, you gotta AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION. Which is my big issue on the matter. Is there some reason
why the Congress should decide such matters and We The People *not* be
allowed to decide, as a committee of the (entire) whole?
It annoys hell out of me that we sold/gave stinger missles to a bunch of
Afghans who were at a 19th century level of technology, weapons which my
tax dollars paid for, and weapons which I am *not* entrusted to keep and
bear, even tho I am sworn by my allegiance to the Constitution risk my
life and liberty in the nation's defense, if necessary. Oh, but I'm a good
ole boy when the rats want my vote.
(And, so long as thugs posing as police can call up main battle tanks to
use against citizens, yes, then citizens must be allowed to keep and bear
TOW anti-tank missiles!)
After all, the slightly limited choice of weapons the Branch Davidians had
left them unable to protect themselves.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
>It annoys hell out of me that we sold/gave stinger missles to a bunch of
>Afghans who were at a 19th century level of technology, weapons which my
>tax dollars paid for, and weapons which I am *not* entrusted to keep and
>bear, even tho I am sworn by my allegiance to the Constitution risk my
>life and liberty in the nation's defense, if necessary. Oh, but I'm a
>good ole boy when the rats want my vote.
Oh, the Government isn't playing favorites. When the war was over we
tried very hard to get them back. Funny, they couldn't be located. . .<G>
-Karl
Eet,
While a member of a militia (National Guard) sure you can drive a tank.
But as a private citizen…nope.
The "final arbiter" of the constitution is the Supreme Court, and they
have repeatedly permitted lregistration laws and limitations on exactly what
types of weapons fall under the "right to keep and bear arms."
You and the Branch Davidians can intrepret the law any way you wish,
but it your intrepretation differs from the intrepretation of those the
constitution gave that power to….then guess who wins?
You claim to be such a constitutional adherent…then why do you
quibble with the courts who the constitution specifically gave the power of
interpretation?
Don
I am *always a member of the militia, and the National Guard is NOT the
State Militia. And, in practice, I can't do anything the gov't says I
can't do, according to the Constitution, I can drive a tank as a Sunday
School Teacher (or candidate for office, for that matter).
the Supreme Court is not only wrong, they border on the criminal. They
have not interpreted for some time, but have legislated from the bench.
*I* am the final judge of the meaning of the Constitution, as are you, and
each of the 250 million of us, when our time comes up. We have, in fact
come to the crux of the matter; we have *no* rights whatsoever; there is
only power and action. I want the federal gov't to obey the Constitution.
The fact of the matter is, I fear weapons in the hands of felons far less
than I do in the hands of any gov't agency. Felons I can deal with, and
they usually come on in single numbers, but gov't controlled thugs come in
batallions (sometimes in tanks). Let the people and the felons keep their
guns, and disarm the police… it'll be violent for a brief while, but
we'll have a peacable and safe society, for the felons will be no more
(armed citizens would out-number and out-fight them), and the police would
no longer have the ability to burn little children alive.
I'm less concerned that a police agency went haywire in Waco (actually,
many did) but that were no reports of members of those agencies denouncing
and quitting their agency, no reports of agents refusing to take part, no
reports of suicides among agents, no reports of any of them getting
psychoanalysis, etc, etc. Of all those cops taking part in the Waco
holocaust, not *one* is reported to have opened fire in defense of the
citizenry. And now I see what our troops are doing in Haiti to put a
marxist back in power, standing by while his supporters do to their
opposition what their opposition was reportedly doing to them, in the name
of *democracy*, US troops violating the Haitian Constitution (from reports
I've heard) in an effort to re-establish a democratic gov't (while
representatives of the opposition are not allowed to take part in a vote
over granting the opposition amnesty)…. I'm simply overcome with
disgust.
I know there are good cops out there Don… just let me ask you…
If they passed a law requiring the confiscation of firearms owned by "law
abiding" citizens", would you uphold it?
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Eet,
1. The Supreme Court can't be wrong…by definition, it's always right.
A different set of judges may have a different intrepretation, and if they
happen to sit on the Supreme Court…then a new precedence will be established.
2. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the individual the right to
intrepret the Constitution individually. In fact, as I stated before, it
specifically gives that power to the Supreme Court.
3. NO…I would quit first. But you have no need to worry about anyone
looking for a registration list and trying to confiscate weapons. It will not
happen. Not now, not ever…never.
Don
What, the supreme court is 9 Popes? nonsense.
Certainly different judges will have different interpretations… some
will be wrong, too.
You seem to be under the impression that only the Constitution gives
rights, nor did I claim the right, any more than I claim the right to
breathe. At some point, I must decide upon obedience or rebellion; at that
point, I must judge whether the Constitution is being faithfully executed
by the Supreme Court.
Okay, suppose the Congress outlawed revolvers. THEN required you to
confiscate "illegal" weapons… would you do it?
From your current answer, I assume you wouldn't… but.. suppose they
outlawed fully automatic weapons… then required confiscation… would
you confiscate those? How do you distinguish?
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Eet,
I didn't claim the Supreme Court is perfect…I simply claim that the
Constitution states they are the final authority. Thus, by definition what
they say is correct…until the law is changed by congress or the Justices are
replaced in due time and the new court has a different intrepretation.
They have outlawed fully automatic weapons…except under very specific
circumstances…and unless someone meets those circumstances, you bet I'll
confiscate the weapon. And that includes ANY weapon that is carried or used
outside the bounds of the current law. If the law changed, I'd have to decide
based on what I felt was reasonable. And if I felt it was unreasonable…no,
I'd quit rather than enforce it if push came to shove.
Don
Ah, I see.. then at that point the law is no longer what the Supreme Court
decides, but what you decide; same conclusion I reached, only sooner. You're
welcome in my home, Don, but leave the badge outside, and don't even look in
the direction of my firearms. 🙂
Eet,
No…I simply believe that in order to enforce the law, you have to
have some belief in its reasonableness. If I no longer believe it is
reasonable…I can no longer enforce it….I'll leave that to those who still
believe in it.
That's my free will. They can't force me to enforce <whatever> law,
but that doesn't change the fact that <whatever> is the law.
Don
Are you under the impression that the Supreme Court has endorsed Gun
Control schemes? If so, you are quite mistaken. Name ONE instance.
-Karl
Karl,
I don't have a legal library here…but there have been several reviews
of so called 'gun control' laws…and those laws have been upheld by the
Supreme Court. I wouldn't use the word "endorsement," just that the Supreme
Court has held those laws to be constitutional.
Don
*only in recent years are there any such cases. Which is understandable, since
only in recent years have we as a people been opening up to communism.
Do you believe in democracy? If people elect a communist, what will you
do? It happens in places like France and Italy… What are you so scared
of anyway?
Nope, I no longer believe in democracy; certainly not universal, "has he
got a pulse?" democracy. I am not afraid of anything to do with communism,
except for the time in the future when the adoption of communist ideology
in this country becomes so extensive and conflicts so greatly with my
ideology of individual liberty that I'll be forced to kill or die settling
the matter. I oppose the adoption of communist ideology because it doesn't
fit with human nature, and will inevitably bring about economic collapse,
and I'd just as soon not enjoy the benefits of a depression. Mostly
communist ideology just leaves me sick to my stomach, which I don't enjoy.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Jim,
I think the government shouldn't interfere with your wish to own your
tank… but the same government in the form of the Highway department
would have some objection to your driving it down the road. That is unless
you're willing to pay to have the road repaired after your tour. I agree
with you that it will require a constitutional ammendment to address this
issue. However, I think it *should* be addressed. What if I wanted to own
a nuclear warhead to counter your tank? 🙂
–
Jim
MOS via Autopilot & Amiga
>> What if I wanted to own
>> a nuclear warhead to counter your tank? 🙂
well..if you could legally get the necessary uranium or plutonium, You can get
the bulk of the plans from most college libraries (or more detailed information
from the Library of Congress..Not to say that they might delay delivering the
information to you long enough for the FBI to follow you home..
Alex
>> well..if you could legally get the necessary uranium or plutonium, You
>> can get the bulk of the plans from most college libraries (or more
The point is, that under the "strict constructionist" view of the 2nd
ammendment, those laws keeping one from getting fisionables would be
unconstitutional. I was just trying to make a point that there should
probably be an ammendment specifing what is considered "arms" under the
2nd ammendment.
-Jim
MOS via Autopilot & Amiga
>>there should probably be an amendment specifying what is considered
"arms" under the 2nd ammendment
Not a bad idea. Might be a doable comprimise (did *I* say that? 🙂
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Under the Second Amendment and looking at the Framing Period I think
that "arms" could be limited to personal weapons, not crew served. That
solves the problem of nukes and tanks, as well as Stingers.
-ash
Well, there are small nukes and missles that could be fired by an
individual rather than a crew. But I can see that when the Constitution
was written, they would have been talking about traditional firearms.
Still, if it isn't defined, some doofus is going to waste court time
litigating over it. 🙂
-Jim
MOS via Autopilot & Amiga
Whoa, not so fast. You need to look again at my original post. The
difference is that "arms" capable of being "born" are protected by the
Constitution. It is quite a stretch to equate "assault weapons" with
tanks, don't you think? Particularly since the new sale of
fully-automatic weapons was banned two or three years ago?
>The fact is, you can legally arm yourself to the teeth, you just have a
>*slightly* limited choice of what weapons to use. Any of the legal
>weapons will do the job of protecting yourself however…and after all,
>isn't that your main point?
Two points here- One, it depends on where you live, doesn't it? If I
lived in D.C., I couldn't be armed at all. The other is that either the
Constitution is either worth the paper it's printed on or it's not. When
you allow the plain language of the Constitution to be subverted because
you think, in one particular case, that it's a good idea, you have
subverted the entire document. That was my point to Ron, and I stick by
it. THAT'S my point, that regardless of whether or not it's a good idea,
it's unconstitutional to do so. I happen to think it's a bad idea, but it
doesn't make any difference.
-Karl
Karl,
Read my last post to Jim Williams.
Plain and simple…the courts were empowered by the constitution to
interpret the law and constitution. Their intrepretation of the right to keep
and bear arms has consistently permitted limitations.
So you're right…the constitution is a whole document and that whole
document has given the courts the power to interpret…and the courts have done
just that. So, in fact, it's you…who happens to disagree with one of those
intrepretations…who is turning it into a piece of toilet paper.
Don
I do *not* merely disagree with ONE of the interpretations. I did not have
any say in the choosing of the supreme court beyond electing a president.
And, despite my feelings about Reagan, from Reagan to Clinton, they've put
a load of socialist, social-activist, IDIOTS on the bench. I feel no
compulsion to agree with idiots simply because they have a position of
power.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
Eet,
No one said YOU specifically had any more rights in choosing the
Supreme Court Justices than anyone else. You have every right to disagree
with those put on the bench, just as those who are in favor of the current
justices have a right to be happy with their selection.
But that's it. You don't get an individual 'say' in who gets
appointed, you only get to vote for the president who makes the appointment and
a senator who confirms the appointment.
Don
No, no such thing. The Supreme Court (and lesser Federal Courts) have the
power to adjudicate cases "arising under this Constitution". NOWHERE is
there a grant of sole power of "interpretation." Or any use of the word
at all. The courts can only set law, they do not determine "truth". And
in fact, the Supreme Court hasn't really addressed the issue, and the
lesser courts have conflicting opinions. So, yes, I get to disagree with
someone else's "interpretation." I have read the legislative history on
the amendment, the major law review articles, and most of the cases in
this area. And I can state, without qualification, that most legal pro
gun control arguments are absolute bilge. The practical arguments are
bilge too, but that's another issue. <G>
-Karl
Karl,
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall
have ORIGINAL jurisdiction. In all OTHER cases before mentioned (which
includes cases arrising under the constitution) the supreme Court shall have
appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact…."
Since that makes them the highest appellate court…then their
interpretation of the constitution or law can not be appealed higher…thus
their interpretation is "law" until changed by a different set of justices or
the Congress.
Depending on your views…arguments for or against gun control are
bilge. I believe there is no absolute right to have any type of armament you
desire, you seem to believe there is. The supreme court sides with me. (or
more correctly…I agree with what they say).
Don
<shrug> I believe there is no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of
happiness, yet that was put in the DoC by the same guys what wrote the
Constitution. But, I do know what the word "infringed" means, and in the
context of the 2nd Amendment, the founding fathers thought there was a right to
keep and bear.. "the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms…." y'gots
feds, y'gots States, and y'gots the people… us. Not the States or feds in the
people's name. The pepul direc'ly.
I don't care what the SC may claim today, tomorrow, or yesterday; I can read,
and I can reason, and I'm not going to accept someone else's nonsense just
because they have a position of authority which is unassailable… except by
impeachment or force of arms, and the commie congress (and certainly not the
commie Prez) are not gonna impeach them.
Eet,
So…you don't believe in reality…but I already knew that.
The solution is quite simple….if you can convince enough folks you
are right…then you (along with those others) can elect folks who think like
you and change the laws, courts or anything you (all) choose.
And if you can't…those with opposing views prevail.
Don
I got a lesson in reality while watching Waco, Don. But, I'm limited in
what I can say publicly lest next time it's my house that gets a knock on
the door.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet
I think one of the biggest problems facing this country is that the vast
majority of the laws and regulations cannot be interpretted correctly by
anyone other than a law school graduate.
Garry Nelson
Don, Don, the Supreme Court HASN'T said much one way or another, other
than dicta indicating that firearm ownership is an individual right.
Failure to review lower court cases is not the same as a statement by the
Supreme Court, whatever you may believe. The LAST major Supreme Court
case on gun control, US vs Miller from 1939 (and the only 20th century
case to reach the Supreme Court), upheld the taxing and registration of
destructive devices (machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, ect.) *since there
had been no contrary evidence presented at trial or on appeal*. The
constitutionality of the statute hadn't even been argued. So anyone who
tells you that gun control has been endorsed by the Supreme Court is
simply indulging in wishful thinking. There are two 19th Century cases
upholding some *State* level regulation, but there is NOTHING that comes
even close to endorsing anything like a federal "assault weapon" ban like
that which was just passed. There is good reason to think those 19th
century cases would be decided differently today as well.
-Karl