"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lrt5ka$g20 $ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
Now, wait a minute!
The gun-control morons would have us believe that every person who owns a gun is a danger to society. Are you saying race has something to do with it?
Do the gun-control advocates know about this theory?
The liberal media has language-code to describe this dichotomy. When talking about a white perpetrator, they'll call him a "white man", but when talking about an ethnic person, it's always just "man".
Are they and the gun-control folks deliberately hiding the truth about where lies the problem? (ya THINK?)
But your vaunted "laws that require background checks..." do not work and never have worked. Look up the "Sullivan Law" in New York State and everyone knows that crimes committed with pistols in New York have been essentially non existent since the law was passed. Right?
The crimes committed with handguns that were bought legally in New York have been essentially non-existent since the Sullivan Law was passed. That's the point. It's the same in Chicago and D.C.
Those laws are futile NOT because they haven't had the desired effect. They're futile because you can get on a commuter train from Chicago to Aurora, and in an hour you can buy a gun in one of the nice gun shops in Kane County.
And if you want to make a haul, take a bus right over the border in Indiana.
Back when racial profiling was legal, you could stop every rented car you saw headed north on the NJ Turnpike, which contained two or more young black men, and spend your day hauling in illegal guns and drugs until you ran out of jail space.
Now look up "firearms control laws" for the state of New Hampshire and the numbers of gun crimes. then look up the same data for, say Washington, D.C.
It doesn't correlate. New Hampshire has few firearm control laws and very little gun crime. Washington has, or had, draconian control laws and many gun crimes.
See above. Now, erect fences on the Maryland and Virginia borders, with border patrols searching every car, and see what happens.
It's a frustrating consequence of freedom. Fewer guns means less gun crime. See Hawaii, for example, where less than 6% of adults own guns. If you want the kind of freedom we have, then them's the breaks.
The bad ethnic neighborhood I grew up near was mainly Polish. I think uneducated immigrant groups from rural areas don't adapt well to crowded urban life until their children have been exposed to general society. A couple of the tough kids from the low-rent factory housing whom I knew growing up are now in the Legislature.
Around here the Irish and French Canadians have long since evolved past that stage and the Sicilians have only recently ceased to feel like outsiders. The brown-skinned Cambodian boat people and other dark southern Asians have integrated remarkably quickly and thus stirred up resentment among groups that ascribe their lack of success to bias against their skin color.
I think their problem is their own bias against "White" educational achievement, which William Faulkner attributed to poor rural Southern whites as well, a form of reverse snobbery that dismisses the value of accomplishments you don't believe you can compete against. I'm the very first of my large southern clan to graduate from college.
formatting link
I still hear resentment of my ability to fix car electrical components like the starter instead of buying replacements as most are forced to do, and my knowledge of multiple foreign languages. It must be very frustrating to envy something you can't steal.
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" fired this volley in news:lrtkf1$tfo$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
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.
"Robert" wrote in news:lrtkf1$tfo$1@dont- email.me:
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".
The state of the art in antipersonnel weapons back then was cannon loaded with grapeshot, not much different in effect from a machine gun.
formatting link
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
But the damned Ferguson would jam in a hurry from powder residue.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
"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?
11:57:20 -0400 typed >>>>> rangerssuck fired this volley in:
The rangersucker is such a buffoon. If the Constitutional protections only apply to technologies extant in the 1790's, then they only apply to technologies of the 1790's.
-- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.