RIP james brady

"Doug Miller" wrote in message


And Ed, and those who think like him, will never accept that notion -- because they don't recognize a difference in the meanings of the words "prohibit" and "prevent".
======================================================================[Ed]
Supposing what I don't "recognize" is somewhat presumptuous, but I'll let that slide. What I'm saying is that there is a self-inflicted blind spot, or possibly a feeble attempt at demagoguery, in saying the Sullivan Law "doesn't work." Of course it works. It's worked fantastically. What DOESN'T work is a hodgepodge of state and local laws that defeat every attempt to reduce the incidence of gun crimes.
It's as if you were in a boat and started drilling holes in the bottom. As it sinks, you say "lousy boat. It doesn't float."
The issue is dripping with irony. The 2nd Amendment is a federal issue. Gun rights, with enthusiasm by many, are embraced as a federal issue over states' rights issue. There was cheering for the McDonald decision, which trumped Illinois and Chicago law with federal law.
Yet, when the consequences of lax laws in one state adjoining another state are plain and obvious, suddenly the gun-rightists act as if it doesn't matter -- it's the Sullivan Law itself that's deficient.
This is a huge issue and, as I said, I'm out of energy for it. But the issue here is just too brain-dead not to comment.
--
Ed Huntress



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote in message

There has always been - until the 'liberal thinkers' got 'hold of it - a class of people who, due to felonies, had lost all civil rights.
====================================================[Ed]
Only if you consider our founding fathers to be "liberal thinkers." I'm sure that many here do...
What you're talking about is called "Civil Death," and it was common in Europe until the Enlightenment. When the US was founded, we never adopted those principles.
Felon disenfranchisement is up to the individual states. Felony convictions generally result in loss of federal 2nd Amendment rights. Different states have different restrictions, but, in general, most rights are restored after you've served your time.
--
Ed Huntress

====================================================
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


By extension of that "reasoning", the First Amendment doesn't apply to telephone conversations or to the internet, which the framers also had no way of anticipating.
And Congress has the authority to fund the Army and the Navy, but not the Air Force.

Clearly it affects him if he wants to buy another firearm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/5/2014 1:00 PM, rangerssuck wrote:

Those were the most capable military weapon of the time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And, by the way, there were firearm control laws even then. the Massachusetts Bay colony had laws prohibiting the selling, giving, or otherwise transferring "fire locks" to the Indians from the 1600's.
And "muskets" should be treated with some respect. If I am not mistaken there were more killed and wounded in several of the battles fought in the U.S. Civil War, essentially with muzzle loading weapons, then the U.S. has experienced in battles fought since the advent of multi shot weapons.
--
Cheers,

John B.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/6/2014 6:36 AM, snipped-for-privacy@invalid.com wrote:

The slaughter of the American Civil War was not because of muskets but rather the use of tactics developed for muskets when the weapons employed were much more accurate rifles. A musket volley at a certain range caused far fewer casualties than rifles at the same range and eventually they ended up with trench warfare instead of lines of soldiers standing up to be targets.
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"David R. Birch" wrote in message wrote:

The slaughter of the American Civil War was not because of muskets but rather the use of tactics developed for muskets when the weapons employed were much more accurate rifles. A musket volley at a certain range caused far fewer casualties than rifles at the same range and eventually they ended up with trench warfare instead of lines of soldiers standing up to be targets.
David
===============================================================[Ed]
Right. The Minie ball did more to revolutionize warfare than many people credit it. When I was a kid in Hagerstown, MD, we'd follow the tractors in the nearby fields when they plowed in the spring. We'd each come up with two or three of them, every year.
I lived on Little Antietam Creek. 'Lots of shooting there.
--
Ed Huntress


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 20:33:53 -0500, "David R. Birch"

Ah... A musket volley at a certain range... usually 50 yards, or less, in the conventional infantry tactics of the time, will do just about the same amount of damage as a volley of rifled muskets (to be specific) at the same range.
The difference is that a volley of rifled musket fire at 100 yards will do about the same amount of damage as the 50 yard volley of smooth bore musket fire thus while you are advancing across the field to get to the 50 yard point they get to shoot about two or three effective volleys at you.
--
Cheers,

John B.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Unless you've been to reenactments it's hard to appreciate how much dense smoke obscures the area between the lines on a calm day. Movies don't really show it properly because a blank white screen isn't interesting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

That is bullshit dogma. The framers had NO WAY of anticipating the weapons available today. The state of the art then was a musket.
The framers had no way of knowing about high speed printing presses used today either. But they are protected under the first amendment. Not to mention the internet your using right now. So much for your Dogma shit!
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's 'bullshit logic'. What does the nature of 'arms' have to do with the statement in the 2nd amendment? They had pistols, too. Were they called out separately; like, 'right to bear pistols and muskets...'?
Or maybe they meant to allow only bayonets; those are arms... only, I can't find that in the text, either.
You're brainwashed by your lib-friends into thinking any illogical perversion of the Constitution you can make is OK, so long as it achieves your goal of DISarming Americans.
Lloyd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lloyd,
You might want to take a deep breath and re-read Roberts post.
It looked to me like he has actually supporting your point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ACtually, yes, he was. I was responding to the "bullshit dogma" comment by expanding upon it, but in the thread, it appears I differed with Robert.
I should have been more careful of the attributions.
Robert, apologies if it looked that way to you.
Lloyd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So by the same "reasoning" you have no First Amendment right to post to Usenet: The framers had NO WAY of anticipating the communications media available today. The state of the art then was parchment and a quill pen.

That same internet is something that -- as noted above -- "the framers had NO WAY of anticipating" and therefore by your so-called "reasoning" your right to publish on the internet is not protected by the First Amendment. Likewise, you have no First Amendment right to send emails, faxes, or telegrams, or to use a cell phone. At least, not according to your "reasoning".
So much for *your* "Dogma shit".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The state of the art in antipersonnel weapons back then was cannon loaded with grapeshot, not much different in effect from a machine gun. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid 070301143456AAJFviM
We could follow the progressive European lead and ban the private ownership of television transmitters (until recently) which the Founding Fathers never anticipated. State-owned media like the BBC tell the people all they need to know.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robert" wrote in message

That is bullshit dogma. The framers had NO WAY of anticipating the weapons available today. The state of the art then was a musket.
The framers had no way of knowing about high speed printing presses used today either. But they are protected under the first amendment. Not to mention the internet your using right now. So much for your Dogma shit!
Robert
===============================================================[Ed]
Most people who get involved in these threads believe that they know exactly what the Framers of the Constitution meant, and think they know history better than anyone else, so I realize that the following is probably a futile effort. But I happen to think the Court got it right in the Heller case, especially since it was built on a mountain of friend-of-the-court briefs from some of the best 2nd Amendment historians who have ever lived.
So, FWIW, here's what the Court said about it:
========================?[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.? 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms ?in common use at the time? for lawful purposes like self-defense. ?In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.? State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6?15, 252?254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ?s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra...."
" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152?153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."
======================So much for the artillery loaded with grape and cannister. Maybe only for open carry. <g>
--
Ed Huntress


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even for personal arms the state of the art during the American Revolution was the fast-firing British Ferguson breechloader, not the musket. Invention was screaming along back then; Ben Franklin received the first cross-Channel airmail.letter and Thomas Jefferson had an office copy machine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message

Even for personal arms the state of the art during the American Revolution was the fast-firing British Ferguson breechloader, not the musket. Invention was screaming along back then; Ben Franklin received the first cross-Channel airmail.letter and Thomas Jefferson had an office copy machine.
======================================================[Ed]
But the damned Ferguson would jam in a hurry from powder residue. <g>
This is a sideshow argument, Jim. I don't think anyone is going to unravel the Supreme Court's description in D.C. v. Heller. The Court made the case that all normal, civilian uses -- like shooting wolves in your backyard, or an occasional Native American who objected to your killing all of his deer and elk, or (God Forbid) blasting some Frenchie invading from Quebec -- were the basis for militia requirements, and for today's significance of the 2nd Amendment.
The Virginia militia required that you show up for muster with a "good musket that fires an ounce ball." That's around .68 - .69 caliber. The bore of the gun was .75 caliber, which would make it illegal in New Jersey, and would use a lot of wadding or spit to keep the ball from falling out of the muzzle. Shooting downhill was problematic...
All of which makes you wonder how the Founders would react to guns that are designed around military research and combat doctrine from the 1950s, which indicated that the side that can lay down more fire in a given amount of time has the advantage -- which makes it ideal for mass murderers, too.
<sigh> The Court doesn't say things like this, but if they could, and were honest, they might react to 30-round ARs this way: "'Guns in common use at the time' includes those reasonably used for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense, but do not include 'tactical weapons' intended to satisfy the combat fantasies of pre-pubescent boys, or those of adults who suffer from revenge fantasies and arrested emotional development. 'Tactical' shotguns should be confined to comic books and to mowing down invading aliens from Mars."
--
Ed Huntress




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


That is just your personal fantasy.
The police respond to armed break-ins and domestic violence complaints with body armor and full-auto assault rifles. I know because I've handled them, plus the silenced .308 sniper rifle. They traded in the previous HK MP5 submachine guns for short-barreled M4 carbines with snazzy contrasting tan handguards. For everyday use they all have M16A2s in the cruiser.
Are those events any less threatening to the intended victims? -jsw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message

That is just your personal fantasy.
=================================================[Ed]
Yeah, well, you never know when sanity is going to break out. It's best to be prepared for those unexpected, rational events.
================================================The police respond to armed break-ins and domestic violence complaints with body armor and full-auto assault rifles. I know because I've handled them, plus the silenced .308 sniper rifle.
==================================================[Ed]
Jesus! It's time to party! The "silenced" .308 sniper rifle is a nice touch. 'Don't want to disturb the neighborhood while you're blowing somebody's brains out.
=================================================They traded in the previous HK MP5 submachine guns for short-barreled M4 carbines with snazzy contrasting tan handguards. For everyday use they all have M16A2s in the cruiser.
==================================================[Ed]
"For everyday use?" What do they use for those special occasions -- SAWs and M2s?
It sounds like your cops got some new toys from the Army program to redistribute military surplus to police departments. Did they get any armored personnel carriers? MANPADS?
=================================================Are those events any less threatening to the intended victims? -jsw
==================================================[Ed]
It's not clear what you're asking here. Are you suggesting we have to protect ourselves from your paramilitary police unit?
I hope they're enjoying their toys. Wherever you are, it's place I don't think I'd ever go on purpose.
--
Ed Huntress


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.