60 mins Hand wringing yet again

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
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...
Any former Soviet-block country can provide you with those weapons for a nominal fee.
Now everyone stop feeding the trolls.
Reply to
Tweak
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.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
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*.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
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)!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
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)!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
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
Reply to
Aaron
So in actuality, you support an educated, CLEAN smelling citizen who is armed, correct?
;-)
Reply to
Tweak
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)!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
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)
Reply to
Jim Yanik
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.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
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
Reply to
James L. Marino
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
Reply to
Alan Jones
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...
Reply to
Alan Jones
There are plenty of people on rmr that will believe ANYTHING just so long as it is posted by a particular person.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
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
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
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
Reply to
Aaron

Site Timeline

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.