Clarification re: 2nd Amendment? KMGuru I don't think you'll find the arms limitations nearly as vital as you seem to imply. To start with the reasonable: does the average citizen need a shoulder-mounted antipersonnel rocket bearing a nuclear payload? To scale back: does the average citizen need a 50-mm rifle mounted atop their minivan? As a political idea, it is the NRA itself which focuses on the government. Certes, there are many a paranoid freak hiding out, packing food, awaiting any number of US-UN-Zionist conspiracies to come along and rape his children and throw him in a Korean tiger-cage somewhere outside Abu Dhabi .... But, really ... what about the time Charlton Heston went on Maher's Politically Incorrect and argued that the government was coming? I personally think he owes a few people apologies: I know people in the National Guard. And let me simply say that if the Guard units at McMinnville, Oregon, were ordered to sweep through the streets and relieve the communities of their weapons, they would not do so. Even if empowered by tank divisions and chem-warfare units in the sky, they would not turn against their neighbors, whom they are sworn to protect. And yet here sat Heston, pushing the "savage weekend warriors" bit so reviled by conservatives. So, is this what we're afraid of? At what point do you trust your neighbor's discretion with that nuke? The only reason governments haven't blown anything sky high since Japan is the miracle of committee thinking: nobody has the cajones to do it. However, on the more reasonable level: I'm not worried that I don't get to fire a fully-automatic deathplow that unloads itself in two and a half seconds. Look at the majority of your neighbors: when the revolution comes, do you trust them to fire an automatic weapon? Or will they be more dangerous to their own ken? Thus I submit a point related to me by an absolute gun freak, though one who acknowledged a few things. Originally submitted to me as a point to justify paranoia toward automatic-weapons bans, there's a deeper notion readily apparent. The author, Stephen Weaver, provided the example as a reason to keep as many different kinds of weapons on ... well, you're welcome to read the article: http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/will.you.fight.html Ready for this? I love this: Weaver even goes on to say it flat-out: What this proves is that semi-auto fire is a match for full-auto in the hands of determined and committed personnel fighting for home and hearth. It should be noted that Mr Weaver missed his own point, and seems rather upset about the automatic weapons ban, and also about the looming semiautomatic ban that has not, seven years later, come about. All of that in consideration, I submit to you that the limitation of what arms constitute protected has not overstepped itself. When the revolution comes, I want my friend J by my side, who can put a .22 round through a dime at 100 meters. End of story. I do not want someone trying to control an M-16 on full automatic; I've seen the flight-path of the rounds when the rifle is bolted in place; I've seen the flight-path when the rifle is fired by a US Marine. I am not encouraged by the idea of the guy just down the line not being able to control his weapon during a critical moment. As to the robbers and the pimps: even in Tacoma Hilltop's worst days, I just don't think an AK-47 would have done me much good. Fully automatic? It wasn't that the gangs were trying to hit anything in particular, but the idea that if you spray enough fire in one direction, you're bound to hit something. Four-hundred rounds into a Chevy Blazer: even if the girl had an AK at hand and managed to fire it off in the direction of at least some of the incoming gunfire, it doesn't mean she wouldn't also have been shooting at anything behind those gangsters. And who's going to unload an automatic weapon in their own hosue? All that firepower in that small a space with a "family to protect" doesn't seem strategic; sure, you've got to protect them, but why do $20,000 damage to the house in the process? An odd part of the definition I've always been curious about, when viewing the 2nd Amendment: What's your take on the phrase, "well-regulated militia"? It's so rarely discussed amid considerations of the Amendment that I don't even know what those more disposed toward firearms than I think of it. But since we're on definitions for the moment .... thanx much, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
tiessa Just in case you REALLY do not know, A "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" is what the federal government defines as"DOMESTIC TERRORIST". The US constitution was never meant to be taken seriously.
I love this..... Ya!! it may be opinion, it may be factual, it may be made up. However it will make you think!!. Have we really been told the "truth"?. http://www.rense.com/general15/tr.htm Blinded by the falg, by hatred, by the mass media!!.
What, a hacker? After the DoS attacks against commercial websites last year, Congress considered legislation that would classify hacking as terrorism. Don't really know what happened to it. More relevantly, are you referring to a man with a gun who claims to know how to use it? (e.g. the manufacturer's representative who, while showing a weapon to an area law-enforcement unit, accidentally discharged the weapon and shot a preschool, hitting the teacher in the leg?) Or the "domestic terrorist" that is Mike's Mountain Militia (BYOB)? The distinction is important because while our nation's gun culture laments that gon-control legislation "punishes responsible gun owners", there is very litte consideration given to what responsible ownership and use means. In this state, it has happened that one can be drunk and cleaning a loaded pistol, accidentally discharge the weapon, kill an infant sleeping in the next flat, and walk away from it because it was an "accident". I don't even get to operate my car drunk and am under the presumption of harm if I do. I find it interesting that one cannot operate a useful tool while drunk, but apparently is allowed to own and operate a device designed to kill people under the influence. It would seem that's how people behave. But it's seriously enough that my three hundred-million American neighbors will, by and large, let that government kill me and say I deserved it: Paz, Dorismond, Hernandez .... If murder isn't a serious enough regard for the Constitution, what is? thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
