The right to bear arms is so you can fight against the government itself.
It seems to me considering the toys the government has now (as a result
of confiscatory taxation several times in magnitude what we railed
against at a tea party) even a really big gun is nowhere sufficient.
One would need C3 and aerial cover and bunkers and smart weapons to even
begin to survive such a conflict.
Jerry
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in
news: snipped-for-privacy@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
A .50BMG round will NOT "blow a Humvee off the road",and not one in
civilian ownership has been used in a crime.
A clue;if you don;t agree with the Second Amendment,the PROPER method is to
AMEND the Constitution *per it's listed procedures*,not enact laws that are
clearly unconstitutional.
Have fun trying.
Jerry Irvine wrote in news:01rocket-
snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:
Except that the use of heavy weaponry against the civilian population would
turn many people in the military to "rebels",and many fence-sitters and
"pro-gov't" civilians would change sides.
The US gov't would not bomb cities to get a few "rebels".
Much of those "toys" would be useless against armed civilians mixed in with
the general population.
Also,one would not go head-to-head against the military,the beef would be
with the *government*.
There's no such limitation in the bill of rights.
But it would make things SO much easier. Fox-2 up your Patriot act!
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)!
The right to bear arms is to GUARANTEE that the citizens have more firepower
than the government. it aint so no more.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)!
Funny thing about physics...theres this law that goes something like
"For every action, theres an equal and oppisite reaction." So, in
order to "blow" a Hummer off the road, you would need to expel the
amount of force equal to the weight of a Hummer. Last I checked,
anything short or a M1A2 main battle tank can't expel that much force
(explosive bullets aside) At worst, a .50 round would shatter the
engine block.
I full support an educated citizen to be fully armed in whatever method
he feels is correct.
Voting Box, Soap Box, Ammo Box - in that order.
-Aaron
Actually the order is Soap, Voting, Jury (you forgot the one that really
ended prohibition) and Ammo.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)!
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote in
news: snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org:
After the recent Kelo ruling(eminent domain),I would not depend on the USSC
to protect rights or freedom.
They also dodge 2nd Amendment cases,instead of settling it.
(perhaps that's a good thing with this court)
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote in
news:b+ snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org:
Not "more firepower",just the means to 'alter or to abolish' a failed
gov't.
Use of heavy weaponry,missiles,or WMD would alienate citizens that would be
on our side,or fence-sitters and possible converts.You get too much
"collateral damage".
You can't target individuals with heavy weaponry.
David,
In what world are you living? Do you really believe that a
projectile weighing 720 grains, traveling at somewhere in the neighborhood
of 3600 feet per second, can knock a 3 ton vehicle off the road? I bet you
even believe that small arms fire can cause the fuel tank in an auto to
explode. You watch too damned much TV.
Do yourself a favor. Take a course in basic physics, then take a
course in American civics. Turn the TV off.
If you can't tell, I'm a (your words) "firearm crazy." I hold the
second amendment very dear. No, I don't own any "assault weapons." None of
MY weapons have ever been used to assault anyone. I DO own several large
combination wrenches. (I'm a heavy equipment mechanic by trade.) You
wouldn't publicly call a wrench an assault weapon, would you? But if someone
hit you on the back of the head with one, if and when you wake up, you WILL
KNOW that you've been assaulted. I know! Let's ban wrenches!
I pray to the dear Lord that I am never forced to use a firearm
against any human being. But if some (expletive), through his or her own
actions, creates such a threat to me or my family, that I would feel it
necessary to use a firearm against them... I DO insist on having the option
of using deadly force to defend myself or my family. And rest assured...
that person would not survive. 'Tis better to be judged by twelve, than
carried by six.
I am not a "gun nut." Or a "firearms crazy." I'm an enthusiast. And
a target competitor and hunter. I get a lot of practice. I'll bet I fire
more rounds in a month than most law enforcement officers fire in their
lifetimes. And they have to qualify regularly. I probably average around
3000 rounds a month, in various calibers. In doing so, I help support many
state and federal programs through the taxes I pay on those weapons and
ammo.
Do you like going to your state parks? I'll bet you do... Are you
aware that most states levy excise taxes on firearms and ammunition to pay
for those parks? Look it up. It's a fact. Do you know how much money is
raised by states for wildlife management from hunting licenses and permits?
Without those licenses and permits, the states would not be able to afford
wildlife management. Or they would have to severely increase YOUR state
taxes. Would you like that?
More people are killed by alcohol than firearms. That's another
fact. Strange, I don't hear you screaming about alcohol control. Could that
be because, as you read this, you're nursing on a beer? Or trying to decide
which expensive bottle of wine to open to go with tonight's dinner?
Be careful what you wish for... you might get it.
James
Sure you can, it is just wasteful. Just look at at the heavy weaponry
that was wasted targeting fautly or late reports of Sadam's where
abouts in Gulf War II.
Alan
I think you'd fare better with an F-117. One F15 is just a target,
you'd need too many of them to maintain air superiority. I thibk
there is nmore power in the pen. Then again there is the Downing
Sstreet Memo, smoking gun...
Several examples of taking of private property for the public good are
specifically prohibited in the C&BOR.
The recent USSC ruling is simply wrong. The sooner it is overturned the
better.
Jerry
The way I read the SCOTUS ruling was that it is up to the state, which
would make sense, except the Fourth Amendment.
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That to me says that if I own property, the government(federal or
state) should not be able to take it from me without a court order.
Since this is a federal law, it trumps state laws.
Then again, what do I know...I'm just a computer nerd...not a lawyer.
-Aaron
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.