60 mins Hand wringing yet again

The constitution gets its sovereignty from the citizens. Those citizens bestow "limited" power onto the government.

The government didn't like that very much and was jealous of the powers other governments had over citizens so went way overboard on regulations, permanant employees, and accumulating the "trappings of government" over the years.

Now the government DOES control the people and even the tiniest challenge to the second amendment must be viewed in this context.

Jerry

Simple. The name scares liberals more.

David Erbas-White

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Why does one have to be "right-wing" to be a gun enthusiast? Or a "gun NUT?) If you go back and read the Declaration of Independence you will find WHY there's a Second Amendment to the Constitution.

So-called "assault weapons" are today's militia weapons;they use the same ammo and magazines as "military" weapons,and share many of the same parts. (in the case of the AR-15/M-16)

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Nor do socialists and other oppressors.

"Doug Sams" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mygate.mailgate.org:

Easy;the "high-powered military assault weapon" is LESS powerful than the average hunting rifle. 8-)

Actually,all the firearms designated as "assault weapons" in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban(AWB) are NOT USED by -any- military.

NONE are full-automatic (machine guns) either. Those are covered separately in the 1934 National Firearms Act(NFA)

David Erbas-White wrote in news:c7uDe.62922$Qo.50980@fed1read01:

It was chosen EXACTLY for that reason. The anti-gunners even admitted it.

It must feel awful to be a dupe.(and I do not mean you two)

Not even close.

Go back and read the second ammendment. It doesn't say anything about High-powered military assault weapons. Or even guns. It says "arms". In 1776 every American had the right to own the most powerful arms on the planet. So I'd like to have an F15, fully armed and ready to take on . And maybe a few ICBMs with warheads.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)!

Yup. The REAL reason for the second ammendment is that the founding fathers didn't trust ANY government, even the new ideal they were creating. They certainly learned from the British. I wish they were around today to finish what they started 230 years ago.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)!

I don't think You could afford it, and no one is going to give you that kind of credit line, without first seeing at least to forms of picture id.

I think You're screwed.

Zombie congress!?

Zombie senate!?

What about Strom Thurman? Is he old and dead enough?

I object to the labels "right-wing" and "gun nut", as I am neither. I consider myself a small-L libertarian, in the mold of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke. Also, I don't own any firearms. The only "guns" I own are cardboard and fiberglass cannons that only fire parachutes and wadding.

I've never played paintball *or* Doom 3, although I have played Doom and Doom 2. I have absolutely zero desire to engage in any sort of terrorism, and no plans to do so, either.

If I were inclined towards terrorism, firearms would be *very* low on my list of tools (almost as low as rockets on that list). Rental trucks, fertilizer, and diesel fuel seem to be far more effective, and are still easily available. (Boxcutters wouldn't even be on the list in the first place....)

Side note: The "boxcutter" approach lost its effectiveness halfway through the terror attacks on September 11th. The passengers on the flight in PA demonstrated, more than adequately, why that approach is doomed to failure from now on. It only worked on the other 3 planes because the flight crew and passengers never believed it was possible that they would be killed. Decade upon decade of rather "benign" hijackings had led the US public to beleive that a hijacking would only result in massive inconvenience, as their plane would be landing in another country. As of mid-morning on September 11, we knew better, and that option was forever closed to terrorists.

However, I do know and understand the fact that all governments are nothing more or less than social conventions agreed upon by the governed. They rule (and, in fact, exist) only by the consent of the governed.

- Rick "Existentialist libertarianism?" Dickinson

Unfortunately, I don't believe so. ;)

By original definition, they are. And to a few licensed collectors.

The current definition of "assualt rifle" was promulgated by the anti-gun nuts for it's emotional appeal.

And, sadly, the re-definition worked on many ignorant people.

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org:

They would be in error.

I do not thinks that was the concept as the soviets found out. No matter how big an army you can afford it cannot defeat the rest of the populace if it is armed at all and want its way! This is the concept of the 2nd amendment. The Gov. should never get so big as to take away the peoples rights and this was their defense. The first act of the Congress on the Militia was do designate the Size of ball, type of firearm, Tent and other equipment both the standing and reserve militia were to have in their possession. This included every man between 17 and 47.

Dennis

Wow! All you Firearm Crazies (see I'm no longer saying Gun Nuts) are certainly giving the Feds something to think about. I'm sure that the ATFE goons monitoring this site are happily filling out paperwork to update their "watch list" files.

Keeping the government in line and questioning authority is the duty of every US citizen -- but the "right" to own a weapon that can blow a Hummer off the road from a mile away is neither neccessary nor patriotic -- it's borderline psychotic. The right to bear arms isn't a blank check for every paranoid fringe survivalist to stock up for armageddon and endanger the 80% of Americans who don't need firearms to feel empowered.

David M.

Perhaps...but if they are, it tends to prove my original thesis (that they may need to be reined in) doesn't it?

Hummer a mile away... Do you know what weapon that is, and where I can get one? Moderation in all things; but the most dangerous thing about that weapon is that it's forbidden. We all know the phrase "slippery slope" and the bottom of that one is children being suspended from school for posessing a PICTURE of a gun (which has already happened).

I too would also be uncomfortable with a neighbor who has a TOW missile in the hall closet; but I'd rather die in a society where a citizen is assumed responsible than live in one where freedoms are sacrificed for my safety.

Actually you will probably be on that list as someone who can be trusted not to have any guns to cause the BATFE any headaches if they were ever to get the go-ahead from any future gun-grabbing administration/congress. You seem to already gone down the slippery slope of no guns whatsoever.

An armed society is also a safer society, just look at the crime rate in the UK and Australia since the guns have been confiscated from law abiding citizens. Using the 'assault weapon', 'safety', 'for the children', and 'reasonable regulation' shields for the last few decades, the government here almost did the same thing. If it were not for the dedicated opposition of the NRA, it would have happened. Too bad the UK and the Aussies did not have an equivalent organization.

Also, you use of name calling ('firearm crazies') doesn't work with most people any more. With the proliferation of alternate news media and information sources, those old leftist, statist tactics just don't work. Your position is one that is opposed by a vast majority of the American public and that gap is widening every day.

Joe Wooten

What do you mean, "blow a hummer off the road from a mile away'? Any weapon that could do that falls under the category of destructive devices and is already verboten. The 50 cal Barrette or other rifles of that ilk are not even close to that in power. These are very large machines, in excess of 30 lbs and more than 50 inches in length. They are not easily carried nor can they be concealed. Each cartridge is a hand-loaded proposition and at that, costs more than $4.00 each. Will they shoot through a wall or through a car? Yes, but so will a 3006 or a 300 Win mag, two very common big game rounds. The 50 cal is not a magic device nor is it a mass killing machine of terrible power. It has not been used by terrorists to attack any one even though it has been widely available since the late 70s, why? Because it is inefficient. Meanwhile, gasoline is available at any corner station. Rigged with an improvised trigger, a gallon of gasoline would devastate a large area very easily and could be both concealed and transported with ease.

Hysterics and miss-information concerning firearms is rampant. Don't add to it by repeating hyperbole, it benefits no one except those who would hurry us into the realm of sheeple.