Questions for Conservatives

[Shogun]

I think it implies that the people can own arms. I do not think it restricts them from having only the sorts of armaments that they can carry on their person and that only have limited kill power. Those restrictions are as a result of court action.

court action like the that which Lenny Bruce dealt with?

Do you sit well with similar court actions applied to the first amendment?

Shit, we can point fingers at half a dozen retarded court decisions during the course of Am. History, eh? the fact of the 2nd amendment remains.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

In those days, the militia was the U.S. military. And they provided their own weapons. Also, the people who say their guns are so they can take up arms against the government if it becomes tyrannical are wrong, as well. They forget that the Constitution also sees fit to include treason as the only crime it defines.

So, the question then becomes what is a well ordered militia?

The militia in those days was not originally the U.S. military. It was first small local groups. Local authorities became the base of a "well-ordered militia". The militia were farmers and town folk who banded together for protection and in rebellion. Almost every man owned a gun back then. From the local bases developed larger state militia and eventually the Continental (later the U.S.) army.

In other words, militia was well-ordered from the bottom up (i.e. the people) and not from the top down.

 

[maineman]

court action like the that which Lenny Bruce dealt with?

Do you sit well with similar court actions applied to the first amendment?

Shit, we can point fingers at half a dozen retarded court decisions during the course of Am. History, eh? the fact of the 2nd amendment remains.

my only point is that the second amendment does not preclude citizens from having whatever damned armament that they can get their hands on. Is that OK with you?

 

[mattskramer]

The militia in those days was not originally the U.S. military. It was first small local groups. Local authorities became the base of a "well-ordered militia". The militia were farmers and town folk who banded together for protection and in rebellion. Almost every man owned a gun back then. From the local base developed state groups and then the Continental (later the U.S.) army warring with Britain under General George Washington.

In other words, militia was well-ordered from the bottom up (i.e. the people) and not from the top down.

Wow. How times have changed.

 

[Shogun]

my only point is that the second amendment does not preclude citizens from having whatever damned armament that they can get their hands on. Is that OK with you?

that certainly seems to be YOUR opinoin... so, I'll ask again:

what weapons were banned from the population in the first 25 years of the ratification of the constitution?

no, your arbitrary opinion is NOT ok with me.

 

[maineman]

[

that certainly seems to be YOUR opinoin... so, I'll ask again:

what weapons were banned from the population in the first 25 years of the ratification of the constitution?

no, your arbitrary opinion is NOT ok with me.

none that I know of.

So...now that I answered YOUR question, you answer mine:

Do YOU think that citizens should be able to own shoulder launched anti aircraft missiles? how about satchel nukes?

 

[Shogun]

OWNING as part of a collection?

sure.

OWNING a gun isn't what kills people. USING the gun unlawfully is what kills people. OWNING a rocket wouldn't kill anyone. USING the rocket to take out a plane would be criminal behaviour.

Yes, give uncle bob his cannon. Let him have fun with an automatic weapon. If uncle bob starts blowing up property that is not his then, by all means, he has acted criminally and can have his collection taken away.

I;ve said it before... if uncle bob wants to plow his field with an m1-abrams then so be it. As long as he is not using such criminaly then he should have every ounce of his second amendment.

when you try to predict criminal behaviour and limit the liberty of constitutional rights then what makes you any different than bushco sliding around the fourth amendment?


comparing satchel nukes to firearms is kinda retarded and conveys how far you will go to feel correct about this. Can I also call phosphorus weapons and napalm ARMS too? mustard gas? anthrax? Do these strike you as ARMS?


should the prohibition of human sacrifice also reduce the first amendment to ashes? After all, if you can lump in dirty bombs with shotguns why can't we also limit speach and religion based on yelling fire in a theatre and the lack of support for human sacrifice?

 

[maineman]

OWNING as part of a collection?

sure.

OWNING a gun isn't what kills people. USING the gun unlawfully is what kills people. OWNING a rocket wouldn't kill anyone. USING the rocket to take out a plane would be criminal behaviour.

Yes, give uncle bob his cannon. Let him have fun with an automatic weapon. If uncle bob starts blowing up property that is not his then, by all means, he has acted criminally and can have his collection taken away.

I;ve said it before... if uncle bob wants to plow his field with an m1-abrams then so be it. As long as he is not using such criminaly then he should have every ounce of his second amendment.

when you try to predict criminal behaviour and limit the liberty of constitutional rights then what makes you any different than bushco sliding around the fourth amendment?


comparing satchel nukes to firearms is kinda retarded and conveys how far you will go to feel correct about this. Can I also call phosphorus weapons and napalm ARMS too? mustard gas? anthrax? Do these strike you as ARMS?


should the prohibition of human sacrifice also reduce the first amendment to ashes? After all, if you can lump in dirty bombs with shotguns why can't we also limit speach and religion based on yelling fire in a theatre and the lack of support for human sacrifice?

where do YOU draw the line on "arms" and please explain how that line is supported by the language of the constitution.

and the 2nd amendment doesn't say that a citizen has the right to OWN arms, it says that he has the right to KEEP AND BEAR arms.

 

[Shogun]

I look at what was perceived as ARMS when the amendment was written: Guns, Cannons and blades. This is why I ask what was BANNED then. If the answer is nothing then, so too, must the second amendment protect the right to own GUNS, CANNONS and BLADES.


When you try to mix in dirty bombs for the sake of mucking up the arguement you are making a tangent that is no more applicable than using human sacrifice to redact the freedom of religion in the first amendment.

Specifically, if a weapon uses the same lethal mechanism as what was available during the ratification of the constitution then it should be allowed to responsible parties. The mechanism involved with THEIR guns are the same as we use with OUR guns. Guns are not more or less dangerous just because they are painted pink or are less EVIL looking. guns do not kill of their own volition. In the hands of responsible people any weapon in of no danger. We DO let certain people have explosives, yes? Thus, what is dangerous is not the weapon but the INTENT of an individual. I can give a rocket launcher to uncle bob and he won't shoot down a plane. You can give out a .22 and will have no idea if that gun will be used to rob a liquer store. THIS is why holding the individual accountable, instead of everyone else and their right to own weapons, is important.

But, again, to specifically answer your question: I include all blackpowder using gun available today because they are no different than the mechanism used, and accepted, then. Notice the word ARMS. Not, WEAPONS. if the latter were the case then I could see where you'd toss in dirty bombs and napalm. However, since neither were a function of THEIR schema of personal arms I think your comparison is as silly as using human sacrifice to discount freedom of religion in the first amendment.


any more questions?

 

[maineman]

I look at what was perceived as ARMS when the amendment was written: Guns, Cannons and blades. This is why I ask what was BANNED then. If the answer is nothing then, so too, must the second amendment protect the right to own GUNS, CANNONS and BLADES.


When you try to mix in dirty bombs for the sake of mucking up the arguement you are making a tangent that is no more applicable than using human sacrifice to redact the freedom of religion in the first amendment.

Specifically, if a weapon uses the same lethal mechanism as what was available during the ratification of the constitution then it should be allowed to responsible parties. The mechanism involved with THEIR guns are the same as we use with OUR guns. Guns are not more or less dangerous just because they are painted pink or are less EVIL looking. guns do not kill of their own volition. In the hands of responsible people any weapon in of no danger. We DO let certain people have explosives, yes? Thus, what is dangerous is not the weapon but the INTENT of an individual. I can give a rocket launcher to uncle bob and he won't shoot down a plane. You can give out a .22 and will have no idea if that gun will be used to rob a liquer store. THIS is why holding the individual accountable, instead of everyone else and their right to own weapons, is important.

But, again, to specifically answer your question: I include all blackpowder using gun available today because they are no different than the mechanism used, and accepted, then. Notice the word ARMS. Not, WEAPONS. if the latter were the case then I could see where you'd toss in dirty bombs and napalm. However, since neither were a function of THEIR schema of personal arms I think your comparison is as silly as using human sacrifice to discount freedom of religion in the first amendment.


any more questions?

the framers were well aware of the advances in military technology that had occured over the years. Are you really suggesting that the authors of this supposedly timeless document just assumed that any future readers of the second amendment would know that "arms" would forever be narrowly defined as only "guns cannons and blades"? You would have thought they would have said so in that case.

and didn't the chinese develop rockets a millenium ago?

 

[Shogun]

did the colonist have rockets made in china, dude?

and no, they did not fathom the dirty bombs YOU brought up. No, they did not fathom mustard gas and napalm. No, they did not anticipate phosphorus weapons. ICBMs? nope. Just like they were not thinking about human sacrifice when crafting the preservation of religios freedom. However, They understood the role of FIREARMS and BLADES in protecting the general population.


Do YOU think the first 50 years of our nation WOULDNT have used rockets when achieving our independence? They used cannons so why the hell would they not use rockets? do you think Andrew Jackson would have said NO to American citizens being scalped by the natives if they defended themselves with the range of options we have now? I doubt it.

Timeless? yes. if you don't like the broad application of THEIR ideal regarding an armed population then, by all means, get your grass roots effort going. YOU can stir up the support necessary to treat the second like the 21st treated the eighteenth. it's totally retarded to see you argue against the second while making every effort to broadly define the first and fourth. Hell, the NINTH should tell you how they felt about the broadness of constitutional application.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the framers were well aware of the advances in military technology that had occured over the years.

Tell that to the loons that argue the only weapons protected by the 2nd are the flintlock muskets in service at the time.

 

[Paulie]

and the 2nd amendment doesn't say that a citizen has the right to OWN arms, it says that he has the right to KEEP AND BEAR arms.

What's the difference, really? 'own'...'keep'...'bear'...

It all constitutes a weapon being in your possession, whether in your house locked away, or on your person.

I don't think anyone would misconstrue the 2nd as allowing someone to keep and bear a nuke.

The constitution is so complex, yet so blatant at the same time. It is also very well thought out, and i would agree that the framers couldn't possibly have thought that only rifles, cannons, and blades would be the only weapon to ever exist. Afterall, it used to be only sticks and stones. Future technological advancements, while possibly difficult to envision SPECIFICALLY, are not at all that difficult to envision generally. I mean, let's not forget now, the industrial revolution was starting. The sky was the limit to them back then, as it still is today.

 

[Shogun]

i doubt that james madison would have stretched from muzzle loaders to dirty bombs when considering this amendment. Look at the purpose of the amendment. Why was it included specifically? Yes, I think they would have allowed farmer bob to have an automatic rifle. No, I don't think that they could even remotely fathom nukes.

Most telling is that, so far, no one can show me what THEY banned from the general populace. Again, if the general population expanding west could afford it I don't think andy jackson would have been the slightest bit hesitant to send automatic weapons with settlers. being naive about chemical weapons does not discount their lack of restrictions AND purposeful intent in adding the second amendment.


for christs fucking sake... consider the old west when it was new frontier!

 

[mattskramer]

where do YOU draw the line on "arms" and please explain how that line is supported by the language of the constitution.

What you ask people to do is logically impossible. The 2nd amendment draws no line. That is one of the points that I try to get people to acknowledge.

 

[mattskramer]

Tell that to the loons that argue the only weapons protected by the 2nd are the flintlock muskets in service at the time.

Apparently it supports all kinds of weapons. It makes no distinctions – yet. Should we continue to leave it as is? If so, I want to buy several bazookas and perhaps a Sherman tank. That’s a good arm.

 

[Shogun]

What you ask people to do is logically impossible. The 2nd amendment draws no line. That is one of the points that I try to get people to acknowledge.

i'll acknowledge that there is no line mentioned....

do you think that such is or is not indicative of an intended line?

without a line how can we presume one while maintaining the same standard in the application of the rest of the bill of rights?

perhaps their naivety makes a clarifiaction amendment necessary.. I have no problem with the process of democracy and how we pass legislation. This is why I invite all the naysayers to get their grass roots on and do to the second what the 21st did to the 18th.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If so, I want to buy several bazookas and perhaps a Sherman tank. That’s a good arm.

You can buy both.

But you can't file off the cereal numbers.

Never mind that the M4 Sherman sucked.

 

[Shogun]

Apparently it supports all kinds of weapons. It makes no distinctions – yet. Should we continue to leave it as is? If so, I want to buy several bazookas and perhaps a Sherman tank. That’s a good arm.

yer fucking right.

and I want one of these!

 

[Shogun]

Big Rifle A Terrorist Tool?
Critics Fear .50-Caliber Rifle Could End Up In Hands Of Terrorists

(CBS) California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided there’s a weapon that’s too dangerous to be in the hands of private citizens.

This past week, a new law went into effect in California banning that weapon. It’s the .50-caliber rifle, the Rolls Royce of sniper rifles. It’s a big gun, a favorite of armies around the world, and it’s still available in 49 states in this country to anyone over 18 with a clean record.

It is, without a doubt, the most powerful weapon you can buy. And, as Correspondent Ed Bradley reports, it's powerful enough to kill a man or pierce armor from more than a mile away.

A Senate report said that a bullet from a .50-caliber rifle, even at 1.5 miles, crashes into a target with more energy than a bullet fired at point-blank range from Dirty Harry’s famous .44 Magnum.

The .50-caliber rifle, one of the world’s best combat weapons, was invented 22 years ago in Murfreesboro, Tenn., by Ronnie Barrett.

How did he come up with the idea? "I was just a 26-year-old kid, and didn't know any better," he says.

But he knew enough to design a weapon that today is used by the armed forces of 35 different countries. He showed 60 Minutes a semi-automatic 82A1 rifle. "This was the first rifle that I designed, and has been our most popular rifle," he says. "This is the one that the United States Army ordered. Matter of fact, this is a U.S. Army rifle here."

Even though the .50-caliber rifle is a military-grade weapon, federal gun laws treat it like any other hunting rifle, and Barrett can sell the gun to civilians. He says he needs to, because military sales vary widely from year to year.

"If it weren’t for the civilian sales, I wouldn’t be here. There’s a lot of defense contractors that would not be here," says Barrett.

He has sold thousands of .50-caliber rifles to private citizens who, he says, want the guns for target shooting and big game hunting.

But he scoffs at critics who claim that .50-caliber rifles are too dangerous in the hands of civilians. "The .50 has an excellent record. You know, as far as the abuses with .50-caliber rifles, they are so few, if any, that all other calibers ought to aspire to have as good a record as it has," says Barrett. "And it's a long rifle. When you hear people say it’s a criminal’s weapon, this is 5-and-a-half feet tall, or something like that. This is not a weapon that a criminal would use."

It’s not convenience store robberies that worry Tom Diaz, a gun control advocate who was an expert witness in the California campaign to ban the gun.

Diaz says the .50-caliber rifle made by Barrett and other manufacturers is a menace in the hands of terrorists. "This gun is designed and built to smash things up and to set things on fire," says Diaz. "It’s a battlefield weapon. Yet it is sold as freely on the American civilian market as a .22 bolt action rifle."

What's wrong with Barrett's product?

"I'm glad Ronnie Barrett makes his rifle for our military forces. I think it's a great thing on the battlefield," says Diaz. "I just think that there are certain occasions when we say in our society, this product is such a threat to our health and safety, and in this case, our national security, we will not allow it."
But isn’t any gun in the hands of a terrorist a threat?

"Well of course any gun is. But it is a gun that is unparalleled by any other small arm available to civilians," says Diaz. "We control every other kind of weapon of war you can think of – machine guns, plastic explosives, rockets. But this thing has flown under the radar for about 20 years."

Why would you need a weapon this powerful if you're not fighting a war? "It's a target rifle. It's a toy," says Barrett. "It's a high-end adult recreational toy. Any rifle in the hands of a terrorist is a deadly weapon."

But New York City’s Police Commissioner Ray Kelly says the .50-caliber rifle is in a class by itself. He agreed to show 60 Minutes just how powerful the .50 caliber is.

First, a police sharpshooter fired the NYPD’s own .30 caliber sniper rifle at a steel target. Downrange, three football fields away, the three shots from the .30 caliber rifle bounced off the half-inch thick steel.

"You can see it hasn’t penetrated it," says Kelly.

Then the sharpshooter fired three rounds from a Barrett .50-caliber rifle at the same target.

"Went right through," says Kelly. "It is clearly a weapon of war, a round to be used in a wartime situation. It’s appropriate for the military. The effective range is about 2,000 yards. It’s a very formidable weapon."

In other words, if the NYPD’s range had been 20 football fields long, instead of three, the .50-caliber rifle – firing ordinary ammunition -- still would have been devastatingly effective.

"Clearly, it is a very powerful weapon. We saw what it could do as far as going through armor," says Kelly. "It would be a weapon that could do a lot of damage – no question about that."

This is exactly what the FBI learned in 1993 at Waco when Branch Davidians fired a Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle at them.

In response, the FBI deployed Bradley fighting vehicles for protection. But even that wasn’t sufficient, and heavier armor was brought in.

What happened at Waco was one of the arguments made for banning the weapon in California. Other states are now considering a similar ban for fear of potential terrorist attacks.

"If you go through virtually any industrial state, you’ll see right off the highways all kinds of highly toxic and or flammable materials stored in big tanks. These are ideal targets," says Diaz. "The point is you can plan your attack from a longer distance. It’s the combination of range and power."

The standard .50-caliber bullet is four times heavier than the .30-caliber bullet, and 10 times heavier than the M16 bullet.

In addition to the standard .50-caliber bullet, some bullets are designed to pierce armor, some to set things on fire. Those are all legal to buy. But the most devastating .50-caliber bullet is an armor-piercing, incendiary and explosive round sometimes called Raufoss, after the company that makes it.

Barrett says he’s not concerned about Raufoss because it’s illegal. "It's a high-explosive round," he says. "It’s not available commercially. I can’t even buy it."

In fact, 60 Minutes found a number of sites on the Internet that claimed to be selling the explosive Raufoss ammunition. On one site, it witnessed someone making an apparent transaction of the illegal round.

Barrett said he was surprised. "If it is out there and if someone other than our military has it, then it is stolen," he says. "And those people need to be prosecuted. We have laws against that. Passing additional laws, you know, is just a redundancy."

But, according to Diaz, the threat posed by legal ammunition is frightening enough. There are many potential targets, he says, but the most obvious is commercial aviation.

"Do I believe I could shoot an aircraft at altitude? Of course not, but on takeoff and landing, I could take you to places in Washington, D.C., where I’m absolutely certain you could shoot an aircraft with one of these guns," says Diaz.

"Clearly, with the range that it has, and the impact capability that it has, it would put an airliner or an airplane at risk if it hit that plane," adds Kelly.

Could the gun be used by a terrorist to shoot down a commercial airliner?

"It'd be very difficult. It would if it were a tactic that were even remotely possible," says Barrett. "Then our military, who happens to use the rifle, would be training their troops to do such."

But in his sales brochures, Barrett advertises the .50-caliber as a weapon that can take planes down.

"There's some military brochures that we had early on that showed that you could damage aircraft on a runway or Scud missiles and things like that," says Barrett. "Yes, you could if you have a parked target."

But not in the air? "That's correct," says Barrett.

Just this past year, the Rand Corporation released a report identifying 11 potential terrorist scenarios involving Los Angeles International Airport.

In one scenario, “a sniper using a .50-caliber rifle fires at parked and taxiing aircraft.” The report concludes: “We were unable to identify any truly satisfactory solutions” for such an attack.

Diaz told 60 Minutes about other much more specific scenarios in which terrorists might use the weapon, which we chose not to broadcast.

"I consider some of the stuff Tom Diaz lays out irresponsible," says Barrett. "I know a lot of things, but I’m not going to go on the television and tell people what the capabilities of equipment are and possibly give ideas to people."

Is what Diaz is saying accurate? "Yes, it could be. But it also, seeming begging someone to commit this crime. Somebody please commit this crime so I can validate what I’ve been saying so long," says Barrett. "And it’s repeated over and over, and I fear that somebody will answer that call."

Diaz disagrees. "Its kind of a classic gun-industry argument," he says. "First, they deny there’s a problem and then when something happens, they point the finger at people who tried to warn about it and say you guys caused this and you just hoped it would happen."

Federal agencies responsible for preventing terrorist attacks declined to be interviewed about the .50-caliber rifle. But last June, the Department of Homeland Security told the Dallas Morning News, “We remain concerned about any weapon of choice that could potentially be used by a terrorist, including a .50-caliber rifle.”

"Any rifle could be used to engage a target that it might stand a chance of hitting, of course," says Barrett. "You know, you don’t want to shoot any high-speed projectile at an airplane. It’s illegal."

"A terrorist is not concerned about what’s legal or not," says Bradley.

"That’s correct," says Barrett. "And a terrorist is not concerned if you pass, or Tom Diaz passes, another law."

Diaz wants Congress to pass a law requiring, at a minimum, records to be kept of who’s buying .50-caliber rifles.

"The real question here is we do not know who has these terribly destructive rifles," says Diaz. "No one in the United States government knows who has these guns."

"Aren't records kept when a gun is sold," asks Bradley.

"The answer is no," says Diaz.

Under the Brady Bill, sales records of guns used to be kept for 90 days, which enabled the FBI to check the names of gun purchasers against terror watch lists.

A year ago, at Attorney General John Ashcroft’s initiative, Congress reduced the period of record keeping from 90 days to 24 hours. That’s the policy that’s in effect today.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/06/60minutes/main665257.shtml