PlayboyPenguin
member
No, over eating causes fat. Spoons are just a vehicle. People kill...guns make it much easier and sometimes more likely.Vern Humphrey said:If guns cause murders, then spoons cause fat.
No, over eating causes fat. Spoons are just a vehicle. People kill...guns make it much easier and sometimes more likely.Vern Humphrey said:If guns cause murders, then spoons cause fat.
PlayboyPenguin said:Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.
...
Vern Humphrey said:Have you read the Federalist Papers? The Debates?
If so, please point out where they say, "The Second Amendment only grants the States the right to keep and bear arms, not the people."
PlayboyPenguin said:Hmm...once again. I do not believe I said that...I believe what I said was...
"I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making." How did you twist that into what you just said?
That was not an answer to my question.Vern Humphrey said:If you want to know what the amendment means, go to the men who wrote it. They clearly intended, as Tench Cox said, "all the terrible implements of the soldier."
PlayboyPenguin said:That was not an answer to my question.
P.S. If that is what they "clearly" meant...then why did they not write it that way. All their other writings were very clearly worded and written in great detail.
Originally Posted by PlayboyPenguin
Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.
progunner1957 said:One more example of HCI/Brady/Million Mom/UN conditioning.
The fact is, the Second Amendment says "Shall not be infringed."
Infringed = hindered, interfered with, manipulated, limited, banned, blocked, or screwed with - in any manner.
Therefore, the citizen's right to own and use ALL hand or shoulder-fired, non-crew served, small arms weapons is protected under the Second amendment. That includes full auto rifles and short barreled shotguns.
Bazookas, LAWs, shoulder-fired missles, etc? Nope - not small arms.
Radagast said:As an IPSC RO I regularly see splits of .16 seconds between shots. That's a cyclical rate of 375 rounds per minute, not too far behind a dedicated full auto. That's aimed fire as well. I'd take a semi over a full auto any day.
As the Federal machine gun register is still closed, all that will occur is that the number in Michigan will go up and the number in the other states will drop. It's a zero sum game. The prices however will go higher as Michigan enthusiasts who can now own these firearms will bid for them. More buyers for a fixed pool will push prices even higher.
The 2nd does refer to a 'well regulated' militia. I do not see this as prohibiting the .gov from requiring all militia members (lets say it's full auto owners at this point) from shooting an annual qualification under pain of a financial penalty. It's pretty much what the Swiss do and it seems to work, full auto weapons are issued and kept at home, overseas swiss have to arrange to qualify in the country they are in or pay a fine.
As the .gov is prohibited from hindering the right to keep and bear arms, it is actually the job of the courts to decide what sort of behaviour should result in loss of that right, as a criminal sanction. The constitution is still valid, as is, regardless of changes in technology. If the changes in society or technology over the last 200 years have created a need to modify the constitution then a mechanism exists to do so. To ignore it on one issue means that it will be ignored on others, until it no longer exists as anything more than a guideline and a cause of nostalgia.
As the Federal machine gun register is still closed
P.S. If that is what they "clearly" meant...then why did they not write it that way. All their other writings were very clearly worded and written in great detail.
And explain how this "very clearly worded and written in great detail" amendment prohibits the government from tapping your telephone line at the utility pole (not a "person", "house", "paper" or "effect") without a warrant. (You DO believe the government needs a warrant to tap your phone, don't you?)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.
PlayboyPenguin said:All good point. The one key thing you said is "since regulation" so if the regulations where taken away what would happen. Anyone's guess... All my experience with autos were in places like Panama, Iraq, etc...and lots of people were killed by them every day. That is where I base my "for killing people" opinion.
Snake Eyes said:I'm going to try one more time before I give up and just :banghead:
Using your 2nd Amendment argument, PP, please read the following original text:
And explain how this "very clearly worded and written in great detail" amendment prohibits the government from tapping your telephone line at the utility pole (not a "person", "house", "paper" or "effect") without a warrant. (You DO believe the government needs a warrant to tap your phone, don't you?)
Now draw the simple parallel from the 4th to the 2nd. Are we learning yet?
jmonarch said:Why should they be any different than any other gun? If you read Miller the way I do, full auto should be more protected than shotguns.
The telephone itself might fall into the catagory of an "effect", but what I said was:Wouldn't the telephone be an "effect"
A private citizen neither owns, rents, has access or any claim to the utility pole or the lines running on it. It is simply a carrier of electrical surges that may or may not get re-assembled in their disembodied voice.tapping your telephone line at the utility pole
Vern, it's interesting that you support rights to own automatic weapons, even thought you wanted the troops in your command to set the selector to semi-only.Vern Humphrey said:Why not? We either trust the people, or we don't. If we don't trust them -- well, that leads to total disarmament.
Read my sig. I can't say it any better than that.PlayboyPenguin said:Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.
Sleeping Dog said:Vern, it's interesting that you support rights to own automatic weapons, even thought you wanted the troops in your command to set the selector to semi-only.
So it's our right to own full auto, even if it's sort of pointless, wasteful, and generally not a good idea. I like that.
My fear (or expectation) is that some moron in my neighborhood with more dollars than sense will get one of these. And he'll haul it out in his driveway on Dec 31, and at the stroke of midnight .... light up the neighborhood. This Detroit suburb sounds like a war zone anyway on New Years eve. Full auto and mass quantities of beer - wow.
Hmmm... if I only link 5 rounds together, can I take a M60 deer-hunting?
Regards.
My fear (or expectation) is that some moron in my neighborhood with more dollars than sense will get one of these. And he'll haul it out in his driveway on Dec 31, and at the stroke of midnight .... light up the neighborhood.
PlayboyPenguin said:Hmmm... I read the 2nd Amendment and I do not see any mention of autos. I also see where it says a well regulated militia...and there are many texts from the time period that state what they consider a "well regulated militia" and they never mention the right of an individual to casually carry a weapon. It says "militia"... when I was not on duty with the ARMY I did not get to wear my uniform or carry my weapon. I am guessing a well regulated militia would be much the same.
PlayboyPenguin said:Hmmm...a new definition to me. But to each his own opinion. Like I said...I am undecided. Just for reference here is the dictionary definition of militia.
mi·li·tia P Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
PlayboyPenguin said:Thanks for the advice but I do not like to read politically biased publications on either side. I like to just read the amendment itself, look of the definitions of the terms used, look up legal precedent and form my own opinion and not have someone tell me what conclussions I should be making.
...