60 mins Hand wringing yet again

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


Most pro-gun people concede that the Second covers individual weapons,and certainly not WMDs. Stuff the general citizen was expected to supply themselves and bring with them when called up for service.
And we don't need either F-15s or WMD to "reset" the _government_. (not the military,-government)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They would be in error.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21 Jul 2005 12:40:48 -0500, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

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...

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob: we already have "personal ICBM's"..... they are known as LDRS..heheheheheh
...and by GOD, if my governemnt can have their ICBM's, then the 2nd Amendment allows me to have my own personal ICBM's..!!!
shockie B)
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20 Jul 2005 01:02:08 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

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
--
Every parliament or congress worldwide should be equipped with a
hundred-pound chunk of sodium in the entrance foyer, such that any
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

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.

--
Gary Bolles

summum jus, summa injuria est
  Click to see the full signature.
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.