Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Right to Bear Arms

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Right to Bear Arms



    Jim Austin wrote:
    Sugapablo wrote:
    Tarapia Tapioco wrote:
    Please sign, it only takes a minute -- Support the 2nd. Amendment!Right to Bear Arms Petitionhttp://www.petitiononline.com/StanRite/petition.html
    Hmmm. Arms?The second amendment reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary tothe security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and beararms, shall not be infringed."It doesn't say "guns", as many people would have you believe. It says"arms".Arms includes tanks, grenades, missles, etc.
    True enough.
    Technically, if you wish to uphold the second amendment, and notinfringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, I shouldbe allowed to park an Abrahms tank in my driveway.
    I could see how one could come to that conclusion.
    Somehow though, people who rant and rave about supporting thisamendment, only mention guns in their arguments.
    Pretty much.
    So what shall it be? Guns and a second amendment gutted andmeaningless, a mockery of its intentions, or the second amendment upheldand the people begin arming themselves with more substantial weaponry?
    There are several ways around that sort of argument. If the original authors considered the Second Amendment as a protection of an individual right, then such a right would apply to individually operated weapons like rifles and pistols rather than crew-operated weapons like cannons. But then nowadays, individually operated weapons include grenades, machineguns and light anti-tank missiles. The real key to determine where to draw the line is the purpose for which the Second Amendment is still needed: to uphold the individual right of self defense. Attacks on the Second Amendment come from people who deny the right of self defense: liberals who are basically pacifists. Liberals want gun control for the same reason they believe in judicial leniency, the same reason they opposed U.S. policies in Iraq, the same reason they believe in unilateral disarmament. It is the same reason why liberals are soft on criminals, soft on communists, soft on terrorists. As pacifists, liberals have a generic softness toward aggressors. Thus in drawing the line on what weapons are protected by the Second Amendment, one needs to note the sort of weapons currently used by punks, hoods, thugs and other assorted lowlives. If such criminals did commonly use tanks, then yes, people should have the right to park an Abrahms on their driveways. As it is, the Second Amendment should be interpreted to allow people to own weapons through semi-automatic rifles. This is opposed to the liberal position that such weapons should be the sole prerogative of thugs.
    The main purpose for citizens to own guns (An item whose main purpose is
    killing) is to keep their government honest.

    Edited due to the words I am responding to:

    The second reason: to uphold the individual right of self defense as the
    prior poster stated.

    I disagree about drawing that line where it is presented because of the
    third reason.

    The the third reason is that if we were to be attacked, and our military
    crippled, then the approximately 159 million of us between the ages of
    20 to 59 inclusive, would be the citizen militia.

    mi·li·tia n. 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than
    professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular
    army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3. The whole
    body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

    Do not confuse the militia with the National Guard. They are not the same.

    Consider that after what ever losses the enemy incurred in crippling our
    military, then their next order of business would be to tame the
    surviving 159 million armed citizens (less those lost in military service).

    30 years ago, I made up my mind that gun control and gun registration is
    just handing your freedom to the enemy. Consider, if our government
    falls to a foreign hostile, then, when the foreign hostile gets a hold
    of our gun control records, they will know how many and where the
    weapons are cached in the hands of citizens.

    Are there procedures in place to destroy these records to safeguard them
    if our government is going to fall to a foreign hostile, in the same
    manner as destroying sensitive classified military documents?

    Think about what freedom means beyond the level of another bunch of
    words in a dictionary.

    Comment


    • #32
      Right to Bear Arms


      "Don Freeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
      news:[email protected] m...
      "Roger R" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] ...
      "Don Freeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] om...
      "Dan Evans" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:08:02 -0400, Sugapablo > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >It doesn't say "guns", as many people would have you believe. It
      says
      > >"arms". > > > >Arms includes tanks, grenades, missles, etc. > > Good point. > > The present gun-control laws discriminate unfairly against those
      with
      > poor eyesight, tremors, or other conditions that deprive them of
      their
      > constitutional right to kill effectively. > You've hit the nail right on the head. Being of extremely poor
      eyesight
      I
      DEMAND my right to own arms of the nuclear variety so that my handicap (and
      the extremely poor aim inherent to it) can be compensated for.
      Since you probably can't deliver it far enough away from yourself to survive, may we request that you test-fire the weapon in an isolated location? I know of an unused ranch (used only for photo ops - no real cattle)
      near
      Crawford, TX that you might consider. With the current mood in Washington D.C. they may not find your statement
      as
      funny as I did. And it sounds like there are quite a few humor-impaired members of the above cross-linked groups as well.
      I must admit that I suspected that I was getting close to making a statement
      that certain zealots might find objection to, but upon reflection decided
      that the ubsurdity of it would be sufficient protection. I realized that
      threatening a piece of unused property and a few fiberglas demonstration
      cattle with an impossible situation would not cause any problem at all.
      <grin>

      Roger R.


      Comment


      • #33
        Right to Bear Arms


        "Dan Evans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
        news:[email protected]
        On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 05:46:43 -0400, Theorem <> wrote:
        On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:08:02 -0400, Sugapablo<[email protected]> wrote:
        It doesn't say "guns", as many people would have you believe. It says"arms".Arms includes tanks, grenades, missles, etc.
        Don't be stupid. There were no tanks, grenades or missiles when theConstitution was written. There were handguns and long guns andcannon. Those were the arms available besides bladed weapons. It'skind of hard to "bear" a cannon, so handguns and long guns were whatyou had available to keep and bear.
        By that "logic," the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to bear muzzle-loading muskets and rifles. **Dan Evans **I post information, not advice.
        And muzzle-loading cannons.



        Comment


        • #34
          Right to Bear Arms


          "Paul A. Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected]
          "Roger R" <[email protected]> wrote
          Since you probably can't deliver it far enough away from yourself to survive, may we request that you test-fire the weapon in an isolated location? I know of an unused ranch (used only for photo ops - no real cattle)
          near
          Crawford, TX that you might consider. Why there? Did Clinton buy a ranch? ;-)) -- Paul A. Thomas, CPA ---------------------
          In Harlem? Was there one for sale there??

          Roger R.



          Comment


          • #35
            Right to Bear Arms


            "Roger R" <[email protected]> wrote
            In Harlem? Was there one for sale there??

            There must be a farm/ranch in Harlem. I've heard wind of there being lots
            of "hoes" there..........


            --
            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
            taxman at negia.net




            Comment


            • #36
              Right to Bear Arms


              "Roger R" <[email protected]> wrote in message
              news:[email protected] m...
              "Don Freeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] m...
              With the current mood in Washington D.C. they may not find your
              statement
              as
              funny as I did. And it sounds like there are quite a few humor-impaired members of the above cross-linked groups as well.
              I must admit that I suspected that I was getting close to making a
              statement
              that certain zealots might find objection to, but upon reflection decided that the ubsurdity of it would be sufficient protection. I realized that threatening a piece of unused property and a few fiberglas demonstration cattle with an impossible situation would not cause any problem at all. <grin>
              I hear that the Secret Service doesn't allow GW to go out there anymore
              because he keeps getting glass shards in his hand from attempting to milk
              the cattle.


              Comment


              • #37
                Right to Bear Arms


                "Don Freeman" <[email protected]> wrote
                I hear that the Secret Service doesn't allow GW to go out there anymore because he keeps getting glass shards in his hand from attempting to milk the cattle.

                I didn't think he had dairy cattle out there. So......I wonder what he's
                down there pulling?




                --
                Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                ---------------------
                Everyday I beat my own previous record for number
                of consecutive days I have stayed alive.



                Comment


                • #38
                  Right to Bear Arms


                  "Paul A. Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                  news:[email protected]
                  "Don Freeman" <[email protected]> wrote
                  I hear that the Secret Service doesn't allow GW to go out there anymore because he keeps getting glass shards in his hand from attempting to
                  milk
                  the cattle. I didn't think he had dairy cattle out there. So......I wonder what he's down there pulling?
                  Don't you know? That's how he finally figured out how to differentiate
                  between the bulls and the cows.

                  The bulls were the ones that smiled when he milked them.


                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Right to Bear Arms


                    "Don Freeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                    news:[email protected] m...
                    "Roger R" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] m...
                    "Don Freeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] m...
                    With the current mood in Washington D.C. they may not find your
                    statement
                    as
                    funny as I did. And it sounds like there are quite a few
                    humor-impaired
                    members of the above cross-linked groups as well. I must admit that I suspected that I was getting close to making a statement
                    that certain zealots might find objection to, but upon reflection
                    decided
                    that the ubsurdity of it would be sufficient protection. I realized that threatening a piece of unused property and a few fiberglas demonstration cattle with an impossible situation would not cause any problem at all. <grin> I hear that the Secret Service doesn't allow GW to go out there anymore because he keeps getting glass shards in his hand from attempting to milk the cattle.
                    Gee, do you think he might be in the market for some fiberglass milking
                    machines? At DOD prices??


                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Right to Bear Arms

                      On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:08:02 -0400, Sugapablo
                      <[email protected]> wrote:
                      Tarapia Tapioco wrote:
                      Please sign, it only takes a minute -- Support the 2nd. Amendment! Right to Bear Arms Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/StanRite/petition.html
                      Hmmm. Arms?The second amendment reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary tothe security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and beararms, shall not be infringed."It doesn't say "guns", as many people would have you believe. It says"arms".Arms includes tanks, grenades, missles, etc.
                      Ummm, I don't mean to nitpick but arms over 200 years ago didn't
                      include tanks, grenades, etc... It' may have included pitchforks and
                      shovels maybe a cannon or two. Just an observation.
                      Technically, if you wish to uphold the second amendment, and notinfringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, I shouldbe allowed to park an Abrahms tank in my driveway.Somehow though, people who rant and rave about supporting thisamendment, only mention guns in their arguments.So what shall it be? Guns and a second amendment gutted andmeaningless, a mockery of its intentions, or the second amendment upheldand the people begin arming themselves with more substantial weaponry?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Right to Bear Arms


                        "Roger R" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                        news:[email protected] ..
                        "Don Freeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] m...
                        "Roger R" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] m...
                        "Don Freeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] m... > With the current mood in Washington D.C. they may not find your
                        statement
                        as > funny as I did. And it sounds like there are quite a few
                        humor-impaired
                        > members of the above cross-linked groups as well. > > I must admit that I suspected that I was getting close to making a statement
                        that certain zealots might find objection to, but upon reflection
                        decided
                        that the ubsurdity of it would be sufficient protection. I realized
                        that
                        threatening a piece of unused property and a few fiberglas
                        demonstration
                        cattle with an impossible situation would not cause any problem at
                        all.
                        <grin> I hear that the Secret Service doesn't allow GW to go out there anymore because he keeps getting glass shards in his hand from attempting to
                        milk
                        the cattle. Gee, do you think he might be in the market for some fiberglass milking machines? At DOD prices??
                        Why not? He bought the whole "Sadam Hussein has Weapons of Mass
                        Destruction" B.S. didn't he? Just to sweeten the deal I'll throw in this
                        little bridge I've got up here in SF.


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Right to Bear Arms

                          "Gen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                          news:[email protected]
                          On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:08:02 -0400, Sugapablo <[email protected]> wrote:
                          Tarapia Tapioco wrote:
                          Please sign, it only takes a minute -- Support the 2nd. Amendment! Right to Bear Arms Petition
                          http://www.petitiononline.com/StanRite/petition.html
                          Hmmm. Arms?The second amendment reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary tothe security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and beararms, shall not be infringed."It doesn't say "guns", as many people would have you believe. It says"arms".Arms includes tanks, grenades, missles, etc. Ummm, I don't mean to nitpick but arms over 200 years ago didn't include tanks, grenades, etc... It' may have included pitchforks and shovels maybe a cannon or two. Just an observation.
                          No Tanks (Except DaVinci's), but Grenades and Rockets
                          were in usage when the US Constution was written.

                          Why do you thing the Right Flank Company in a British
                          Regiment were called "Grenadiers". Congreve Rockets
                          were in development and were first deployed by the
                          British in combat in the Peninsula Campaign, about 1812.

                          They had a lot of them shot at them in india in the late
                          1700's. BTW, they were the "Rockets Red Glare"

                          Just for Historical accuracy.
                          --
                          Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
                          SSG Ret, USA, ADA


                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X