However, this little gem from the Army Times is beginning to make me wish I had never listened to those activists who stated that the 2nd Amendment was outdated, or that it was never designed to give private citizens access to military grade equipment.
Looks like we might need that military grade equipment before too long...:surrender
Faelar
However, this little gem from the Army Times is beginning to make me wish I had never listened to those activists who stated that the 2nd Amendment was outdated, or that it was never designed to give private citizens access to military grade equipment.
Hmm, has the Rubicon been crossed?
Can't remember the exact quote, but something along the lines of "Where citizens are disarmed and militias disbanded inplace of a regular army, the state can use the army to oppress the citizens."
So it's actually an almost anarchist concept - people should be able to protect themselves from the State should it get out of hand.
I think the idea of the 2nd Amendment was to provide military grade equipment - the idea being that private citizen militias could state up to the army should any attempt be made to end democracy.
Go figure, a bunch of revolutionaries left a clause in the constitution that would allow the potential for another revolution in the event of a tyrant gaining control of the nation. Suddenly the founding fathers' choice to leave that right in there seems very important.
My question still stands, is the use of US Army units as police within the US the crossing of the Rubicon by our Caesar?
Go figure, a bunch of revolutionaries left a clause in the constitution that would allow the potential for another revolution in the event of a tyrant gaining control of the nation. Suddenly the founding fathers' choice to leave that right in there seems very important.
My question still stands, is the use of US Army units as police within the US the crossing of the Rubicon by our Caesar?
I don't know if it's quite that level (yet), but it makes me jittery as Hades.
Ugh. I mean, it's one thing to use the NG in the short term in a crisis; that's the intention.
The Armed Forces are to fight wars/battles. If they think they need to police the US proper, that's bad.
That said, I support the 2nd Amendment being pretty much unrestricted; not only for protection from tyranny, but from crime. Because our police, great people that they may be, can't be everywhere at once. [hyperbole] So I'd like to not have to rely on someone who'll make it in time to photo my body and take statements [/hyperbole] Again, I greatly appreciate our nation's police. But there's not nearly as many of them as there are criminals.
But there's not nearly as many of them as there are criminals.
Is it their fault that there's only so many seats in Congress?
Is it their fault that there's only so many seats in Congress?
I'm sure this is funny, but it's the end of my day, and I'm tired and hungry.
Can you explain the joke for me?
I'm sure this is funny, but it's the end of my day, and I'm tired and hungry.
Can you explain the joke for me?
Once Congress is full, where do we send the criminals? I realize Wall street is a good choice, but it's chock full already.
Once Congress is full, where do we send the criminals? I realize Wall street is a good choice, but it's chock full already.
Ah. I get it now.
And the answer is: the IRS and State Dept. ;)
Who here has heard of John Locke?
The Second Amendment protects the other 9.
Who here has heard of John Locke?
I know. It's amazing that the liberals and the American Communist Liberals Union (ACLU) have been trying to destroy the 2nd Amend for 50 years. Without the 2nd the rest eventually fall. That's obvious. Maybe that's the plan...
Going into the way back machine, the founding fathers were strongly influenced by what they believed to be the classics of Greek and Roman civilizations. One of these influences was the idea that instead of a standing army the nation would have a militia that would form whenever it was needed. These militias, like the minute men of the revolution, would leave their farms with their arms and form an instant defense force.
At the time of the signing of the constitution the notion of a standing army was strongly opposed as they thought an idle army with nothing to do would stage a coup.
The Continental Army was created on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander. After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791.
OK let’s take this one step at a time. Back in the late 18th early 19th century ...
If you want to see the actual reasoning you should read the latest SCotUS 2nd amend decision. It's VERY long but goes into the correct historic reasons and context.
Though I understand the complications of an armed populace, I think it's part of the price of freedom. If we want to reduce the number of Americans killing each other every year, we have to find another solution in our culture and policy besides denying the right to bear arms.
Some of the success of the Dems recently is due to the fact that more dems embrace the second amendment. See CO and MT. Not saying they are going blue, just that there has been a shift.
In general, I can't stand the idealogues on either side. I like to acknowledge the conservatives love of country and desire to improve it, even if they don't always seem as willing to reciprocate.
In general, I can't stand the idealogues on either side.
The desire to safeguard the entire Bill of Rights should be the concern of both liberals and conservatives...
I'm a big time 2nd Amendment supporter. To me, the only thing I have no problem restricting is automatic weapons, but that's understandable,
Then you don't understand the 2nd Amend or US v. Miller and the latest ruling.
You should study the latest SCotUS ruling and the above referenced decision.
I've always been rather ambivalent regarding the clash between 2nd Amendment proponents and gun control advocates, usually coming down slightly on the side of the NRA-type proponents with reasonable restrictions.
The day the NRA actually says boo to an administration who wipes their butt with the constitution is the day I believe they stand for the second amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Why does the NRA keep forgetting about that gerund clause. The second amendment means nothing if you loose your arms true, but it also means squat if you get to keep your guns, but you don't care enough about the rest of the bill of rights to use them. I ain't advocating violent overthrow, but seems to me that any organization dedicated to the 2nd amendment should at least have something to say when the state is no longer free.
But these guys made a deal with the devil - they can swallow any travesty except loosing their guns. So the Bush administration makes a mockery of them, and uses them, then trounces our rights, and the NRA only says "Hey man, at least they didn't take our guns away!" Well no duh, why would they since that seems to be the only thing that can rouse you from your complacency.
Generally speaking, I could give two hoots if'n you like your guns, or don't like 'em. It clearly isn't for our government to say anyway, and about things like this they need to butt out. Still I think the NRA really doesn't care about the intent or the spirit on the 2nd amendment.
Still I think the NRA really doesn't care about the intent or the spirit on the 2nd amendment.
As long as you & I do care, that's what matters. I'm not an NRA member, btw.
I'm a big time 2nd Amendment supporter. To me, the only thing I have no problem restricting is automatic weapons, but that's understandable, and it's as far as I would go when it comes to gun laws.
I have a problem with any restrictions as long as our military and the enemies of our nation aren't living under the same restrictions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that every American needs to have machine guns and rocket launchers, but it is important that the people are able to purchase or procure rifles capable of mounting a defense against enemies both foreign and domestic.
The second amendment is the final balance in our government. It allows for individual militias to assist in times of invasion and provides a counter to the army in the event that a tyrant gains control of our nation. Not that it ever will happen, but it's better to be prepared for that eventuality than to be caught awares in the middle of it.
I know the three assault rifles in my closet might scare other people, but I keep them well maintained and routinely take them to the range to make sure I can still hit something smaller than the broad side of a barn. I have served in the military and can tell you with absolute certainty that if the chain of command is subverted by men with tyrannical aims, don't count on units rebelling against it if given orders to occupy American cities. As long as the second amendment stands, the possibilty of a military coup or establishment of a police state is lessened.
And if the unimaginable occurs and another nation attempts to take the US by force, I know the terrain in my home turf and can shoulder my own rifles to aid the military forces of the nation to repel the invading nation. The second amendment lays the groundwork for a partisan defense of America in the unlikely event that it finds itself invaded and it's armies decapitated, dismembered or distracted. I realize the likelihood of this is very slim, but we became a nation under equally slim odds.
The crime argument is foolish. Guns used for criminal acts are generally not purchased legally. If you restrict the people from purchasing firearms to defend themselves and their property, you won't be restricting the illegal sale of weapons to those with other intents. Criminals will still be armed long after the people are disarmed.
I will admit, though, that I'd love to get my hands on a Brugger & Thomet MP-9 and a military-grade M4.
Americans are sociopaths.
You take guns away from them, you make it harder for them to kill each other.
Simple as that.
Problem is that a lot of them end up going to the military, so if we do not maintain sufficient civilian control over the government you can end up with suppression of the populace.
Here's the fundamental problem:
Americans are sociopaths.
You sure about that? I've never made an attempt to deny a person's rights. Your statement only shows ignorance in the fact you believe every American has no regard for another person. If that were true, the medical profession (of which I'm entering) would never exist.
You take guns away from them, you make it harder for them to kill each other.
Simple as that.
Uh-huh. There have been about 20 homicides in Maine this year. All but 2 or 3 were the result of beating or stabbing. Taking away a gun only makes it harder to kill from a distance. Just look at the rampant crime in DC and you'll understand.
Problem is that a lot of them end up going to the military, so if we do not maintain sufficient civilian control over the government you can end up with suppression of the populace.
You sure you want to say that when many users on this forum are vets and are now part of the populace? Your decision.
You sure about that? I've never made an attempt to deny a person's rights. Your statement only shows ignorance in the fact you believe every American has no regard for another person. If that were true, the medical profession (of which I'm entering) would never exist.
I never said every American. Put some effort into understanding posts before you respond to them.
Many Americans do not have any regard for the lives of people they do not know. Many others simply put little value on the lives of other people.
Uh-huh. There have been about 20 homicides in Maine this year. All but 2 or 3 were the result of beating or stabbing. Taking away a gun only makes it harder to kill from a distance. Just look at the rampant crime in DC and you'll understand.
Yes. DC has a huge problem with crime. Guns will make it worse.
I never said that getting rid of guns will get rid of crime. Again, you should have put more effort into reading and understanding my post.
You sure you want to say that when many users on this forum are vets and are now part of the populace? Your decision.
Yes.
Many people join the military just to kill people. You hear about the atrocities they commit in Iraq and Afganistan periodically.
Not all soldiers are heroes.
Incidentally, if so many Americans are such horrible people, shouldn't we take the most dangerous weapon, and one of the leading causes of death, away from them? By this, I of course mean: the car.
How many auto-related deaths do we see occur every year? And how many gun-related deaths? Now factor in how many of those auto deaths are via accident, and how many gun deaths are accident.
I'd say we'd have a decent case for taking cars away, right? By that logic?
Frankly, if someone truly wants to take the life of another human being, little will stop them.
Hanzo: I'm curious: what are the gun control laws like in Maine? Fairly loose, or fairly strict?
Hanzo: I'm curious: what are the gun control laws like in Maine? Fairly loose, or fairly strict?
Loose. It's easy to get a concealed weapons permit, too (244 municipalities, according to the Maine State Police).
Here's more stuff I have:
Maine state law says that a person cannot have or buy a gun if:
- He was convicted of a felony in the United States;
- He was convicted of a crime in Maine that is punishable by a prison sentence of one year or more;
- He committed a crime using a firearm or other dangerous weapon in Maine, or any other state or the Passamaquoddy Tribe or Penobscot Nation;
- There is a protection order (as defined by Federal law) against him in Maine or any other state, US territory, commonwealth or tribe that orders him to stop hurting or threatening to hurt an intimate partner, or a child of his intimate partner;
- He was convicted as a juvenile of a crime that would have been considered a felony if the crime was committed as an adult; and
- He was found to be not guilty of one of the crimes mentioned above because he has a mental disease or because he is insane.
Basically, commit no crime, you're good. I've been able to hold and use a handgun by a gun dealer, even though I was under 21 at the time. They just took my word for it.
Not all soldiers are heroes.
True. But not all heroes are moral paragons, either. Nevertheless, flaws are what make us human.
Interesting....
Incidentally, if so many Americans are such horrible people, shouldn't we take the most dangerous weapon, and one of the leading causes of death, away from them? By this, I of course mean: the car.
Oh sure, I bet you're one of those people that points out that all the smoking-related cancers can also come from pollution and the benzene fumes people are exposed to when they gas up their cars.
So basically, we already have data saying: gun ownership != gun crime. In an entire state (admittedly not one of the top 10 most populous, I think...maybe?).
Interesting....
Maine has just a little over a million people.
Also, if you're curious, there was a study on which states were the safest back in '02 or '03 (the year escapes me). Maine was ranked the 3rd safest state in the country.
Maine has just a little over a million people.
Also, if you're curious, there was a study on which states were the safest back in '02 or '03 (the year escapes me). Maine was ranked the 3rd safest state in the country.
Yep, it's pretty safe.
I grew up in an area where everyone owned multiple guns and there was no violent crime. Well, one person got shot when I was growing up. It was a guy who shot a cop in a nearby city. He tried to escape through our town. A posse was formed and he hunted down on horseback and killed.
Most of those restrictions, and more, are already in place on a national level as part of the basic forms that every purchaser must fill out. CCW permits often ask that you submit to a more stringent background check than standard purchase and undergo training.
The bad play done by a few states with CCWs is that they have the laws on the books, but the local authorities will not issue, or put such high criteria into place that they basically are impossible to obtain. A law passed, but exicuted in bad faith.
There is a clarity of terms issue at play in this as well I think. Everyone is talking about "automatic" weapons, which I don't think anyone on this board owns. They have been severly restricted since the 1930s(can't recall the passsage date of the law), requiring a class III FFL in order to buy them. Then, only models produced before 1984-5, and the level of scrutiny that you undergo to obtain the Class III FFL is horrible. Semi-automatics are readily available and have good use, but cannot, contrairy to what the media will tell you, be converted to fully automatic. The level of machining skill and firearm operational knowledge(better than gunsmithing knowhow?) are not easy to come by or readily in the hands of those who would do harm to others. "Assualt weapons" I still keep to the classic definition that it is a weapon with selective fire modes and one of those includes full auto or burst fire. Those are already restricted as listed above. Being a firearm that is a semi auto version of a military weapon, or having a bayonette lug(how many bayonette attacks in the US before the ban in the early 90s?) or a pistol grip, does not an assualt weapon make. It is a term used to make guns seem scary and put a spin on the news that helps a political faction restrict firearms.
I want and Bushmaster or good Colt AR-15, the price stops me though. I won't go into the cost of the Springfield M1s..There is nothing criminal about having the guns. They are enjoyed by a good number of Americans without blood running in the streets.
I won't bother addressing TDs assertions that Americans are blood thirsty killers and the military is full of those who have a desire to do nothing but kill. If he's willing to apply the same thinking to every person on the planet and extend the blood thirsty analogy to police or any law enforcement, then we can agree he's an equal opportunity hater.
However, eleminating firearms does not cause violent crime to fall. It leads to other weapons taking their place. Which leads politicians to try to ban those items, which leads to new items on the list. Starting very soon, England, with near total ban on firearms, will have a ban on swords in place. Some of those with prior martial arts training will be allowed to keep theirs, but the storage and transportation restrictions will be heavy enough that both WMA and EMA weapon stylists will have a hard time training. Why is this law going into place? Because idiots who both couldn't get a gun and are aware that no one else has access to them started laying hands on cheap, flea market katanas etc. Cricket bats etc are also under fire. Heck, I don't know if it's still active, but someone in the House of Commons was trying to get a ban on kitchen knives over a certain length or with a sharply tappered point. The reasoning? Normal people don't have a need for such knives. All they are good for is killing people. That arguement sound familiar?
Just for those people happy about the over turning of the DC gun ban after the SCOTUS decision, don't get too happy yet. The DC city council, with the mayor's guidance, has put in place a near identical set of restrictions on handguns in the home as they had on longarms. The same ones they were told were un-Constitutional and illegal. Stored in a safe, trigger locked or disassembled. The requirements to even get a permit, I doubt many will be able to meet, if they even issue any permits. There is a world of difference between saying something must be allowed, and actually letting someone do it.
The oddity that I never actually understood was this. So many of the people argueing against individual ownership being supported by the 2nd Amendment try to say that it establishes militias(which are not, I say again, not the same as the National Guard or Reserves), as a power of the US Federal Government. No other item that Bill of Rights that I can readily think of gives power to the Federal Government. To the contrairy, they exist to either limit the US Gov. or to particular rights to average citizens.
The second arguement made is that the 2nd Amendment is outdated or no longer needed in our modern times. Or that the weapons now are not what the founders were talking about, that the AR-15, or it's brothers, should not be owned by average citizens since they didn't exist at the time. Only muskets and flint lock rifles were covered. Say what? At what point do individual rights become out moded or outdated? Do advancements in technology strip away a right fundamental enough to be specifically enumerated? Does the internet or film or radio invalidate the 1st Amendment or increased cost of items/property invalidate the 7th? Buckets hold water, this logic does not.
Yup, this hits what I have observed dead on.
another thing about an armed populous, is that it acts as a training mechanism for etiquette. A fool will think that should he do anything to breach the accepted conduct, he will be harmed, however, by the time he realizes that the others will not harm him for such a small slight, he will have absorbed the manners into his habits.
I would also like to say, for those enthusiasts that would benefit, by federal law, a muzzle loading black powder weapon is not a firearm. You can own a cannon... I know people who do.
Most of those restrictions, and more, are already in place on a national level as part of the basic forms that every purchaser must fill out. CCW permits often ask that you submit to a more stringent background check than standard purchase and undergo training.
That's pretty much why I said every state has those laws. Also, I'm pretty sure, for CCW, it's fill out application, take course, and get background check. If you're accepted, you get it in 30 days if you've lived in Maine more than 5 years, and 60 days if less. I'm pretty sure of that, but I could be wrong.
There is a clarity of terms issue at play in this as well I think. Everyone is talking about "automatic" weapons, which I don't think anyone on this board owns. They have been severly restricted since the 1930s(can't recall the passsage date of the law), requiring a class III FFL in order to buy them. Then, only models produced before 1984-5, and the level of scrutiny that you undergo to obtain the Class III FFL is horrible. Semi-automatics are readily available and have good use, but cannot, contrairy to what the media will tell you, be converted to fully automatic. The level of machining skill and firearm operational knowledge(better than gunsmithing knowhow?) are not easy to come by or readily in the hands of those who would do harm to others. "Assualt weapons" I still keep to the classic definition that it is a weapon with selective fire modes and one of those includes full auto or burst fire. Those are already restricted as listed above. Being a firearm that is a semi auto version of a military weapon, or having a bayonette lug(how many bayonette attacks in the US before the ban in the early 90s?) or a pistol grip, does not an assualt weapon make. It is a term used to make guns seem scary and put a spin on the news that helps a political faction restrict firearms.
Now that you mention it, that makes sense. I remember this guy demoed a Glock 18 on the Discovery Channel, and he mentioned he had the only 2 18's that were not in the hands of the military or law enforcement. Okay, then, I get it now.
I also knew semi-auto's couldn't be converted to full auto. That's common knowledge to most gun owners. In addition, I know auto fire is only a criteria for an assault weapon, and it's function that makes an assault weapon, not look (Bushmasters aren't assault rifles, M4's are, like your example stated). Of course, the media won't tell the people that because
1) They're negative
2) They're biased
3) They're stupid.
Just gonna' randomly throw this stuff out there, take it or leave it...by which I mean, don't shoot (;) ) the messanger.
-As the dems & repubs continue to evolve, it would seem that we are flirting more and more w/ fascist overtones in this nation. Govt. keeps getting bigger and compartmentalized. Good ex)FBI used to cover alot more ground. Now, we have the DEA, ATF, and Homeland Security. It is essentially wasteful financially and bloating. Gives more control to more people that compete rather than a centralized and more cohesive govt. agency. More specifically, bigger govt./more departments/bureaus/agencies mean way more spending, more training, and of course, more politicing.
The monitoring of incoming internation calls to the US (Bush admin wiretapping policy, though it's not all call everywhere) points to fascism. The ok'ing of certain torture policies. Govt. mandated health care (as opposed to letting you choose) and resultant skyrocketing of prices (MRI in Tokyo approx $98, here, approx $1,200) and further complexity & interference. No Child Left Behind debacle. etc. etc.
-paraphrased "It is the civic DUTY to overthrow a democracy (or any govt.) when it no longer serves the interests and rights of the people." -Thomsas Jefferson
I guess it depends on your perspective of your degree of liberty/freedom, but from where I sit, it would seem both parties are inching, ever-so-discretely, to larger govt. w/ more control w/ its citizens becoming bigger consumers w/ less control/freedom.
-Assault rifles for sale in the US are semi-automatic. When people say "automatic", they fail to realize that's most handguns, rifles, and some shotguns even. The machine is doing the cycling/chambering/etc. for you.
It would go w/out saying for cops, "Revolver or automatic?" as their sidearms. Most use automatics now, larger capacity, more accurate.
However, the language used in the media and general sensationalism make them element of fear instead of tools. "Automatic" to John Doe is full-auto or burst fire a'plenty. "Assault rifles" conjure images of infantry in pitched battles, not the same .223 (5.56mm) rifles geared for semi-automatic fire and short clips on the civilian market. Think standard is 5, yes? Even shotguns have a plug in the magazine to limit capacity. But I digress.
To be perfectly honest, I would rather be engaged at rifle ranges (not standard gunfighting ranges [distance, not geographic site]) w/ a civilian semi-auto M-16a4 than my dad's .223 bolt-action or his .45-70. The later (hunting rifles) are far more accurate and feasibly more deadly, but the prior "looks more formidable" via intimidation factor.
Related: And to be honest though, I would rather intimidate an aggressor and not have to shoot him than to actually fire/perhaps kill him and live w/ the mental baggage. Messes you up. After you kill someone (not something), you're off...assuming you don't suffer from some disassociative disorder/etc., in which case, you shouldn't have a gun to begin with. How many vets w/ extensive trigger-time are perfectly sound psychologically speaking? It's a huge price to ask a man/woman.
-And those "standard gunfight ranges" are 10 ft too (FBI). Point blank is 0-3ft...This is probably because most of them take place in tight, urban quarters, which is statistically the deadliest combat around.
Avg attrition rates for Army personel for "taking" an occupied area in urban warfare is 1 solider/room. You could loose an entire platoon in an apartment building assuming every room was occupied (unrealistic, but you understand).
This is cuz' they know you must come through doorway/window 'x' and can train fire there, not 360 degrees of field and trees. In a forest, desert, mountain, it's a flat plane (x and y axis) where they can fan out, lots of room to maneuver. In urban, it's x, y, and z and every door, every window, grate, car, it's all suspect. It's a miracle our casualties in Iraq are as low as they are now (4,000+) vs. Vietnam (56,000+).
-Woe to any army that tries to occupy US territory. Given the 2nd Amendment and the avg citizen, gang banger, gun enthusiast, etc., we're talking partisan fighting that would make Falluja in '04 look tame in comparison. A determined populace w/ homefield advantage is nearly impossible to defeat. This is why Afghanistan has been called "The land that swallows whole armies" (see British, Soviet, and American action there).
Unless the threat of nuclear/bio/chem weapons was used, it would be impossible to defeat and occupy American home soil conventionally.
-As another pointed out previously, most criminal acts are committed w/ illegally acquired guns. Banning them does not remove the criminal element. I believe violent crime in Australia rose significantly when certain bans were enacted too.
Despite handgun bans in D.C. in the past, it was still a murder capital. And of course, just happens to be the nerve center of our govt...go figure.
Also...as was pointed out in the last post. Most "intelligent" crimes are commited with a gun that is not linked to the person using it. Therefore it was illegally obtained.
If you think making guns illegal would help...it sure helped when we made drugs illegal.
If you think making guns illegal would help...it sure helped when we made drugs illegal.
Making drugs illegal does cause illegal guns to pool in the same places.....
The problem with the common american view is the idea that guns can provide liberty whereas they can only protect it. That said, criminals dream of unarmed victims and govts dream of docile and domesticated citizens....
Well, TD, "Americans are sociopaths" sounded pretty inclusive; at the least, it implies a majority of the group. "Some Americans" would have incurred a vastly different response.
Incidentally, if so many Americans are such horrible people, shouldn't we take the most dangerous weapon, and one of the leading causes of death, away from them? By this, I of course mean: the car.
How many auto-related deaths do we see occur every year? And how many gun-related deaths? Now factor in how many of those auto deaths are via accident, and how many gun deaths are accident.
I'd say we'd have a decent case for taking cars away, right? By that logic?
Or perhaps it is a decent case for better licensing for the use and ownership of guns? :D
I'm just saying.
You can convert a Semi-auto to a full auto...
Much like making a solid drag racer out of an AMC Gremlin, this task is well beyond the capabilities of most involved, doesn't work nearly as well as buying something meant to be a drag racer and doesn't function well or for long.
I haven't said it can't be done. It can. However, what it takes to accomplish the semi-auto to full auto conversion requires more gunsmithing skill and access to either parts or a machine shop, and machining skill are not in the hands of common criminals. Full auto lowers for things like the AR-15 and it's clones require the Class III FFL, the work to modify bolt stops, sears and other parts is precise, unforgiving and difficult.
Not going after you on this one Maulorn, it's just one of those myths out there that I hate seeing bandied about and used to scare people so that a political agenda can be advanced and a right restricted.
Or perhaps it is a decent case for better licensing for the use and ownership of guns? :D
I'm just saying.
Criminals don't participate in licensing schemes. Probably because by their nature they don't respect laws...
Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.
Criminals don't participate in licensing schemes. Probably because by their nature they don't respect laws...
Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.
That would assume that the goal of requiring a license is to curb criminal use of guns. That certainly isn't the goal of a driver's license. Knights_Disciple's argument was that just because we can decrease deaths by outlawing cars doesn't mean we should. My rejoinder was (and to be sure I am playing a little of the devil's advocate here) well we require a license to drive a car in the hopes that we can reduce traffic accidents, so doesn't his argument support licensing of weapons?
That would assume that the goal of requiring a license is to curb criminal use of the gun. That certainly isn't the goal of a driver's license.
What would be the "goal" of a licensing scheme that you propose?
What would be the "goal" of a licensing scheme that you propose?
Reduce accidents from improper / incompetent use. Just like the goal of a driver's license.
Reduce accidents from improper / incompetent use. Just like the goal of a driver's license.
Actually, that's not the goal of a drivers lic. If it were you couldn't take the test an unlimited # of times in a foreign language in a single day. It is a mechanism to generate $ for a state.
If the goal was to lower accident rates the test would include hazardous situation testing while driving. It would also include reaction time testing as well.
Actually, that's not the goal of a drivers lic. If it were you couldn't take the test an unlimited # of times in a foreign language in a single day. It is a mechanism to generate $ for a state.
If the goal was to lower accident rates the test would include hazardous situation testing while driving. It would also include reaction time testing as well.
While I can't deny that one of the goals of a driver's license is to get $. It certainly is a major goal of the process to make sure the user has some form of competency with the car. An argument that they don't test for this or that is flawed, since there are any number of ways to show that you have a certain level of competency with a car, and certainly every test can not hope to cover all of them. You'd have to spend all week at the frikkin' DOT, not just all day!
BTW in NC we do have to do a reaction time test (in the driving portion of the test.) You also have to take an eyesight test, and prove you can read signs. All pretty basic stuff, but if you DON'T know it your gonna be an even crappier driver than grandma after a night of tequila shots; or a texting 15 year old - you pick.
So wouldn't it be good to have shooters ed in High School. You learn not just firearms safety, but how to properly clean and store the weapon, and how to hit what you are aiming at. And at the end of the class you get to go down to the state shooting range and squeeze off a few rounds to get that laminated slip of paper that you can carry in your wallet to say I am at least competent with this pistol. I know I would have been in line for that class.
So wouldn't it be good to have shooters ed in High School.
Way too late. You should start around 1st grade. If there are guns around the house you'd want the child to understand them. This is the reason you see city kids shoot themselves but almost never in rural areas where hunting is common. They learn early to understand and respect firearms.
Maulorn
Much like making a solid drag racer out of an AMC Gremlin, this task is well beyond the capabilities of most involved, doesn't work nearly as well as buying something meant to be a drag racer and doesn't function well or for long.
I haven't said it can't be done. It can. However, what it takes to accomplish the semi-auto to full auto conversion requires more gunsmithing skill and access to either parts or a machine shop, and machining skill are not in the hands of common criminals. Full auto lowers for things like the AR-15 and it's clones require the Class III FFL, the work to modify bolt stops, sears and other parts is precise, unforgiving and difficult.
Not going after you on this one Maulorn, it's just one of those myths out there that I hate seeing bandied about and used to scare people so that a political agenda can be advanced and a right restricted.
Eh the main reason I know why it is not a myth is because I know a armorer who can do it. Sooner or later when I get up the buck, I am going to have him build me a kick ass AR-15 (semi)
No doubt...but there are seven degrees of separation separating someone who does not have the knowledge...with someone who does.
I prefer semi's over fully auto's. There is honestly no reason I can see why you should possess a fully auto unless you just really want to show off at a gun convention.
I do not know if anyone has touched this either...but I feel there is not a reason for high-powered hollows to be legal.
I do not know if anyone has touched this either...but I feel there is not a reason for high-powered hollows to be legal.
Why not?
lol
Overkill...the hydrostatic shock is going to be enough...
lol
That's not a reason to make it illegal. One kills, the other kills better.
Do you have an actual reason?
First I was thinking about penetrating body armor...
Then I realized that high powered are going to do it anyhow...
Really though for lower powered rounds...
Do you see purpose in citizens owning rounds that penetrate body armor?
Do you see purpose in citizens owning rounds that penetrate body armor?
Of course. To fulfill the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Do you see purpose in citizens owning rounds that penetrate body armor?
To kill Storm Troopers AKA Brownshirts AKA...
same goes for rockets.
Do you see purpose in citizens owning rounds that penetrate body armor?
Only one.
Rounds capable of penetrating body armor are only useful in stopping people in body armor and that means the availibility of those rounds is a certain defense that tyrants and criminals alike will know that you may well have the ability to kill them if needed, regardless of that vest they expect to protect them.
If we lived in a perfect world, guns wouldn't be needed. If we lived in a perfect world, armor wouldn't be needed. If we lived in a perfect world, neither criminal or police would exist. Sadly, this is not a perfect world. This world is full of people that seek to take, hurt, kill or intimidate. The ability for the people to arm themselves against such things is imperfect, but it's better than the alternative.
To kill Storm Troopers AKA Brownshirts AKA...
same goes for rockets.
Don't go to nazis, please. Germany before WWII had some of the absolute best gun control laws, but then again, so does England currently. It didn't stop criminals and it certainly didn't deter the government's fanaticism, it only made it easier to cow the dissenting opinion.
I agree with the thinking that says we should be able to purchase shoulder-fired anti-tank and anti-aircraft rockets as well. I also think that if I have the financial means, I should be able to purchase and have the responsibility to posess and maintain the heavier and more expensive weapons of war.
It is my opinion that veteran's organizations should own and maintain enough of an arsenal that in times of war they can roll out as an irregular militia. I think that all citizens in the United States should be educated in the proper use and maintenance of firearms for their own safety and security. I would have every man, woman and child in this country educated, trained and able to use the instruments of warfare so that they might never have to. Knowledge is the power that might deter a future enemy.
Do you see purpose in citizens owning rounds that penetrate body armor?
Reason Why Armor Piercing Guns Are Needed
Hunting Accident (just for laughs)
Way too late. You should start around 1st grade. If there are guns around the house you'd want the child to understand them. This is the reason you see city kids shoot themselves but almost never in rural areas where hunting is common. They learn early to understand and respect firearms.
It's very rare that you and I agree, Kursk.
Knowledge of firearms is the most important thing that can be taught. I would charge the educational system to add it as well as civics to their curriculum starting at day one. Teach younger children how to handle firearms safely and older children the proper way to use them. Teach them how to maintain them all along. Teach them not only how to shoot, but also when and why to shoot.
As to the question of liscensing. I would think it should be something that would be as natural as a driver's liscense. Sure, there would be millions of the liscenses out there, but how many people would actually own firearms? That would easily mask the firearm owners in the crowd and leave a possibly tyrannical government wondering who has or hasn't got guns.
I don't have a very severe problem with this organizational choice on the part of the government. I do believe that, with this move, National Guard and Reserve units need to be fully controlled by the governments of their respective states. The federal government nowadays has ample resources for domestic military and para-military purposes, and these state-oriented forces need to be fully divested from the federal force and completely endowed to the individual states.
The crossing of the rubicon will be overturning of the second amendment. Also, stay on the watch for federally regulated identification. The federal government currently has the ability to demand that states put specific data and/or technology on their state IDs, and can cut all funding to that state should it refuse to comply. Should the federal government begin regulation IDs to the point that smartchips are required on all IDs, watch for spikes in identity theft. This will lead to rallies for implanted identification. When the government calls for its citizens to begin carrying identification biotechnology, know that the revolution will not be televised.
Oh, and, since the question is apparently circulation, I'm a social anarchist, with liberal republican leanings.
Do you see purpose in citizens owning rounds that penetrate body armor?
Other than the fact that rounds capable of penetrating body armor have existed for longer than modern body armor?
Basically any round commonly found in the hands of a hunter will punch right throguh the stardard issued bullet proof vest of police. From the lowly 30-30 to the hottest new wild-catted .243 or 7mm short mag rounds, you have to get into heavier SWAT or military grade body armors before there is a chance of slowing them down.
We can return to the car anology and ask is there a max speed a car you can own can have? Who decides what the limit is and who determines what your "need" is?
I would charge the educational system to add it as well as civics to their curriculum starting at day one. Teach younger children how to handle firearms safely and older children the proper way to use them. Teach them how to maintain them all along. Teach them not only how to shoot, but also when and why to shoot.
goblin_pride,
While I whole-heartedly agree with you that firearms safety, handling and basic skill should be taught from the early childhood on up. However, unless the political leadership of the national teacher's union has done a complete 180 in the last few years, they hold a staunchly anti-gun position. Since they are a huge lobby presence with the Department of Education, your plan, much like a good civics or history course in US schools, isn't likely to happen. Side gripe, it's something like 6-8 states do not require a US history course to be taught to students. At all. The lack of civics rant is even worse.
Side gripe, it's something like 6-8 states do not require a US history course to be taught to students. At all. The lack of civics rant is even worse.
Yes, it's horribly sad that people haven't even got the basic knowledge that they should about either history or the rights and responsibilities that accompany their citizenship.
But we have much to celebrate. Our newest citizens are taught the things most Americans don't feel they need to know. Yes, Jose and Pedro that came here and applied for citizenship were required to learn those very things in order to become citizens.
All those natural-born Americans that don't even have the foggiest clue who patriots* like Payne, Addams, Jefferson, Madison, Romney (no, not Mitt), Hopkins and Hancock are should be ashamed of themselves and have their citizenship revoked as punishment. If newly-minted citizens can recite the Bill of Rights, why do people that have been protected by them all their lives can't?
One thing I would like to see, but won't, is a test of the people's knowledge of history and civics before the right to vote can be exercised. I know, that would be discrimination. Hard to believe, isn't it? At least we can rest easy in the knowledge that the people that don't understand the system are either too lazy, too cynical or too jaded to vote anyway.
*I would be impressed if anyone could identify who the ones I mentioned were. With the exception of Payne, all of the listed signed the Declaration of Independence. These are men that risked the gallows for treason to make your life better. These are men that knew they would be hanged if their revolt failed and did it anyway. And most of America can probably only tell you who three or possibly four of them are.
Knowledge of firearms is the ...
Agreed.
Personally, I'm offended that the Declaration of Independence doesn't appear to be given heavier weight in this country. It's older than the constitution, and quite arguably more important. The statements and concepts that were put into this document guarantee rights no other legal documents do, and it guarantees them on a level no other documents do. The Bill of Rights guarantees a lot of things, especially the Ninth amendment. However, through it's place as a federal legal document, it implies those rights are provided and guaranteed by the state. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights (only three of which are listed) come from a level far higher than any mundane government, and tells us that the state can only at best protect these rights, and that they are only guaranteed by the holders of those rights, and nobody else.
Hm. I see where you're coming from here. The quibbler in me would put forth this modification of your idea:
The Declaration of Independence is more important on a fundamental, conceptual level.
The Constitution is more important on a functional, daily level.
That is to say, the concepts discussed in the Declaration are more important, and certainly are the bedrock for the foundation the Constitution lays. However, the Constitution helps us protect those concepts, as well as giving us the basic framework for our government, something I view, in the end, equally as important. After all, with a bad framework, the ideas in the Declaration might have died an early death.
Incidentally, I agree overall with the ideas of better history, civics, and gun safety. I would put forth that I hope some method could be laid down to ensure that private schools of all levels could afford to provide these courses, or in the case of the gun safety course(s), possibly have the students take the course at a public school for credit or some such.
Personally, I'm offended that the Declaration of Independence doesn't appear to be given heavier weight in this country. It's older than the constitution, and quite arguably more important.
“The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, announcing that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were no longer a part of the British Empire.” (Wikipedia)
First of all it is a statement, not a piece of legislation. Its purpose is to declare independence; not to grant legal rights in any manner whatsoever. The preamble is an appeal to natural law, not to the laws of man. Never the less, the declaration’s use of natural law has been referred to in Supreme Court cases.
“The phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ appeared in the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which focused on an anti-miscegenation statute.” (Wikipedia)
“The United States Declaration of Independence ...
Good post. Thanks
This is typically what kills you. A small bullet w/ enough powder behind it will put you down surely in this regard. However, this was not always the case. Blackpowder smooth bore and rifled barreled guns didn't necessarilly do the trick. Civil war munitions, often .50 cal (a huge bullet) for standard infantry, were black powder, thusly not very "fast". This resulted in all those amputations we hear about. Fast enough to kill at close(r) ranges, not fast enough to go through you; round bullet goes, hits you, energy isn't sufficient, energy is transfered into surrounding wound, namely bone, shatters bone instead of going through it, amputations galore.
Body Armor: It has already been stated in short. Contemporary body armor will not stop most rifle catridges. An AK-47 (standard insurgency Warsaw Pact weapon of late and forever really) is .308 cal or 7.62mm rifle cartridge. Standard g-thug ********er bullet of choice is a pistol cartrigde, typically 9mm, a larger bullet overall. The rifle cartridge has way more powder behind it = longer range, bigger recoil, but more importantly, much higher damage. They are going way faster, and thusly, way more kinetic energy is expended into you.
This will go through body armor easilly enough, teflon coating or no. Pistol cartridges, like those mostly involved in police/criminal dealings often won't. But that's just the chest. A hit to the femoral artery in your leg with a even .22 will punch your ticket just as quickly, but I digress. It's just you can conceal a handgun nicely, but as assault/hunting rifle, not so much. And the element of surprise is everything too.
All that body armor we give to coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is largely useless vs. the massively huge abundance of Warsaw Pact munitions, specifically the AK as mentioned, not to mention all those IEDs they use. The speed of a rifle cartridge will easilly go through it. SMGs, pistols, not necessarilly though.
Even light armor, armor in the formal jargon of APCs, mechanized infantry (TOW arrays in Humvees), etc., will not necessarilly stop a .50 cal bullet which is world away from the old black powder .50s. But most of the partisan fighting we're seeing now is small arms, RPGs, and homemade mines.
Hollow points/etc: Yes, more killing power, but only against unarmored targets. You guys know how they work and bla bla bla, but they are actually safer than normal ammo. Soft bullet mushrooms, in soft tissue, not hard objects. That is, a stray shot will smoosh against a concrete wall or hardened target rather than passing through, richocetting, etc. Lower collateral damage. This is why many cops use them.
However, we're not supposed to use them per the Geneva Convention, though many do. Full metal jackets are the warfare round we're supposed to use. Just a "jacket" of metal surrounding the bullet proper. Clean hole, no mushrooming, cleaner barrels (less maintainence), etc. But the days of formal warfare are over pretty much. Little brushfire skirmishes, blitzkrieg-esque raids, surgical strikes, etc are how it goes now.
Gun safety/education: Paramount. You get a tool, you need to know how to use it, simple, right? We've known this since we discovered fire.
When stupid ppl get a hold of guns, that problem often solves itself, but they have kids too. Same thing w/ powertools, cars, etc. Most of the problems w/ kids and accidents stem from the parents anyway. In America, we love to pass the buck. Sue Ruger cuz' your kid shot himself. Sue McDonalds cuz' it made you fat. No one is responsible for what they do...
If mandatory safety/indocrination was implemented instead of just restricting the guns in question, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on legally and waste valuable court time, reduce accidents, and increase responsible ownership.
When I was 1st learning, around age 6, my dad would simply leave an unloaded assortment on the coffee table for us to look and tinker w/ and say, "It's ok, work the slides, clean them please, whatever." And we did for like 2 overnights...Consequently, once the charm of "forbidden fruit" wore off, late night Cinemax and sugary treats had more appeal than another of dad's .45s on the coffee table we'd simply ignore. Between the lectures at the ranges or outdoor venues, our own explorations, and getting intimately acquainted w/ them via dismanteling/cleaning, etc., it was no longer an issue. Guns that are stored away secretly (and your kids will find them) and not explained, taught about, have this funny way of teaching you the hard way.
Just like a car (and we license those too), you don't impress upon an ignorant youth the killing potential and fallout, well...And nobody sues the car manufacturer for a DUI. But there are plenty of drunken hunters that blast anything and were stupid for it, paid the price, and now must live w/ that guilt.
Only incident we ever had w/ guns was using the reloader in the basement (wrong spoon of powder turned .38s into .357s mags), not "little hands and curious minds". Dad's fault too and we called him on it. Had he not trained us as he did, he would have more than likely ignored our protests of "this .38 special is kicking more than it should dad" and lost the gunframe and a hand maybe. So, ironically, the students became the teacher one Fall day cuz' he taught us in no uncertain terms, details details details. It worked.
International: every legal male citizen in Switzerland is required to have a military grade assault rifle in the household, be licensed and proficient in its use, etc. Bicycle infanty, pioneering the highway/runway model for fighter/attack aircraft, etc. Very progressive and intelligent ppl in terms of military theory and application. Ultra-neutral ppl/govt in terms of war, but a potentially powerful militia is just waiting to be unleased.
In all those little villages and hamlets, they enourage weekend turkey shoot-esque cookouts, constant training, and responsibility for the citizenry. It's been pushed as a civics event, not just military preparedness, and consequently, for better or worse, related or not, their gun crime is incredibly low and they saved millions by letting local communities deal rather than govt. mandates.
Now, should a foreign power roll in (highly unlikely given the economic fallout from Zurich and world opinion) or a corrupt govt. no longer serve national civic interests, they are able to mobilize quickly w/out much traning or millions of dollars in prep time...that's time further injustices get committed, lives lost, property destroyed.
IMO, bad govt. is like a cancer. Longer you let it go, worse it gets. Probably not going to be an issue for them. They seem to have things well in hand. Keep grinding out watches, chocolate, and world wide financial tools/consulting.
Now, in Iraq, you are entitled to an AK in your household too since way back when. But this is a totally different theatre of warfare, different ppl, different everything. But I understand given the relatively poor respect for human life, very high turnover rate, mysterious disappearances of loved ones, Shiite/Sunni infighting, etc. Saddam's mandate for this was not the same as Switzerland's I'm sure. But it's always been a hotbed of action in the Middle East. Best to not get involved...to which we bungled that up pretty badly.
Civics/history education: Sad but true. When they instituted the Ohio Proficieny testings for my freshman & senior years of highschool, it was amazing to see the degree of ignorance. Where is Washington? What do the 13 stripes/50 stars represent? Really basic crap alot of kids didn't know or care about cuz' it's "not immediately useful, and therefor, trivial."
When you don't know your own rights/laws/history, you are beholden to people that do, namely lawyers and the govt. It is so convuluted that you are highly recommended to get legal representation cuz' no one, even the well educated, has little chance of knowing the very own laws that prot. and serve them. Knowledge is power and all that. Why do you think there are so many lawyers now?
It's such a machine, so complex in the legalese and rhetoric, that you need an "operator" so to speak, to walk you through it.
And rulings by technicalities are the bread and butter of it these days (OJ anyone?) And if you're ignorant, someone's gonna' take advantage, namely the people that legislate, execute, and enforce them. They have the knowledge, and thusly, the power. In that complaceny and ignorance, your rights are being manipulated, ommitted, or changed w/ you none-the-wiser more often than not. And sadly, you often deserve it cuz' you gave away your power for free when you had unlimited AND FREE resources to research the very rights you had from the beginning anyway. FOIA insures that, the net, you local library, etc., all are venues for the public...
And yet, they'd rather quibble over legal small potatos, search for more Brittany Spears crap on the net, check out movies at the library instead of important text, etc. All the tools were available and it only fosters a further antagonizing of the "big legal issue".
Gun control is just one of many. Now, you might not need mil-spec weaponry, but you are guaranteed the right to buy a gun (providing you're not a felon, etc). That's your right. Strangely enough, a car and it's documentation/legal work is only a privledge.
Sorry, rant off.
The Constitution exists to establish a government with the purpose of protecting the rights of the citizens. It is the consummation of the Declaration. However, something does not have to be a legal document to be important. I would argue that the fact that the Declaration is not a legal document puts it above the Constitution. The Constitution is the mandate for a government to protect the rights of the citizens from others. The Declaration is a mandate for citizens to protect their rights from the government.
Hm. *Shrugs* I suppose this is coming down to a matter of our perspectives here, though I think I see where you're going with this.
Oh, and, since the question is apparently circulation, I'm a social anarchist, with liberal republican leanings.
I'm not sure about that, you sound more like a classical liberal, which now are being called libertarians.
Isn't interesting how the tenth amendment lay completely forgotten...
The Constitution exists to establish a government with the purpose of protecting the rights of the citizens. It is the consummation of the Declaration. However, something does not have to be a legal document to be important. I would argue that the fact that the Declaration is not a legal document puts it above the Constitution. The Constitution is the mandate for a government to protect the rights of the citizens from others. The Declaration is a mandate for citizens to protect their rights from the government.
And strangely enough, not one single mention of the Articles of Confederation that existed between the the Declaration and the Constitution. People don't understand that the United States did have another document in between. People seldom even learn that the founding fathers' first attempt had to be wiped from the books after just a few years. The Constitution was never a final draft, more of a work in progress. Just be mindful of the parts that get edited....
I'm not sure about that, you sound more like a classical liberal, which now are being called libertarians.
Smile when you say that, pilgrim.
I guess what I was really trying to say is that what about handgun's with stouter bullets. Like when they use the steel tips in the 9MM. I believe they are currently illegal.
I'm not sure about that, you sound more like a classical liberal, which now are being called libertarians.
Isn't interesting how the tenth amendment lay completely forgotten...
I consider myself a social anarchist because I believe the best government is no government. The presence of a government complicates the lives of its citizens. To that end, I believe that any government which exists should do so with the intention and purpose of improving and, more importantly, simplifying the lives of their citizens. I prefer anarchy, though.
Further, I'll see your tenth amendment, and raise you a ninth amendment.
And strangely enough, not one single mention of the Articles of Confederation that existed between the the Declaration and the Constitution. People don't understand that the United States did have another document in between. People seldom even learn that the founding fathers' first attempt had to be wiped from the books after just a few years. The Constitution was never a final draft, more of a work in progress. Just be mindful of the parts that get edited....
I don't consider the Articles because it was officially abandoned by the people in favor of the Constitution. I do prefer the Articles' leanings toward the individual sovereignty of the states, but the Constitution was designed with this same preference in mind. The purpose of the Constitution was to establish, at the level of the union, a level of government which was not above the states, but merely between them and the allies of the Union. Sadly, the Articles are long dead. "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" sounds way cooler than "Constitution" anyway.
Personally, I'm offended that the Declaration of Independence doesn't appear to be given heavier weight in this country. It's older than the constitution, and quite arguably more important.
Oh, I would argue that document is the most important political document in human history.
Oh, I would argue that document is the most important political document in human history.
Never heard of the Magna Carta?
Oh, I would argue that document is the most important political document in human history.
I'm going to have to go with the Magna Carta. It set the ball rolling.
Of course if we're really talking about all of human history shouldn't we also talk about Mao's Red Book? or Marx's Das Kapital? I'm still inclined to go with the Magna Carta but certainly those two political documents have been important to human history.
Not to hijack the thread but I could also be persuaded on the Torah, Bible, and Koran (sorry not sure about other religious texts particularly those from Hindu). The religious texts were certainly political when written and continue to influence political thought.
Of course if we're really talking about all of human history shouldn't we also talk about Mao's Red Book? or Marx's Das Kapital? I'm still inclined to go with the Magna Carta but certainly those two political documents have been important to human history.
I would be tempted to call the Magna Carta a first draft of the Declaration of Independance, not that it actually is, but one compliments the other quite a bit. I don't know that I could put my finger on one document from history that is more important than any other*.
*No, that latest Harry Potter book doesn't even come bloody close.
I would be tempted to call the Magna Carta a first draft of the Declaration of Independance, not that it actually is, but one compliments the other quite a bit. I don't know that I could put my finger on one document from history that is more important than any other*.
*No, that latest Harry Potter book doesn't even come bloody close.
My bias on religious works aside, pure political documents I'd have to agree. Though, if I had to pick a "top few", I know the Code of Hammurabi, Magna Carta, and Declaration would be in there.
And as much as I enjoy Harry Potter, yeah, it's not even close. ;)
And as much as I enjoy Harry Potter, yeah, it's not even close. ;)
You know those are kids' books, right?
I think Hammurabi's Code is important as well, but I think the Torah, the Talmud, the Bible, the Koran, the Baghavad Gita (sic), the Norse Eddas and so on and so forth are all equally important. All of them are codes of law, all of them should be carefully examined and studied when you're discussing the most important documents in history. You have to remember that all of the original laws were "god's laws" first and went on to be nations' laws after.
I don't discredit them as important to history even though I don't accept them as history. There are many things in those various books that when dissected and examined and then compared to histories can show a clear pattern in the legal systems of all the nations of the world.
The book of Levitticus in all the Judeo-Christian religions, including the Druze and Samaritans*, shows an example of the earliest health codes. It spells out, to the letter, all the things a people need to do to stay healthy and grow in numbers. It tells you what not to eat. Who not to shag. When not to shag. And if followed in a bronze age culture, would give you a fair shot at outbreeding your neighbors.
Do I believe it was handed down by god? No, but it's not a part of my belief system. Is it important to history? Most certainly. And I leave the belief in it to others without discounting it because some Baptist thinks that it's the word of God, unchanged since the day it was first written. But I could be wrong....
*yeah, all 700 or so of them. It's a crying shame, but that religion will soon disappear completely.
You know those are kids' books, right?
...
Yeah, so? :P
Yeah, so? :P
Just checking. Carry on. Nothing here to see, people. Move along.
Yes hunting rifles have the stopping power...
I guess what I was really trying to say is that what about handgun's with stouter bullets. Like when they use the steel tips in the 9MM. I believe they are currently illegal.
These moments are incredibly rare. Your typical armed assailant will be using normal slugs, nothing fancy. The more exclusive the ammo, the easier it is to zero you from the point of acquisition via forensics and typical policework. It's just narrowing of the search field.
You push the envelope, you raise the risks. Really, a smart criminal won't even carry a gun. The risk outweighs the gain via violent crime and using a very specific weapon or ammo makes it riskier still. Why draw more attention?
It's the same old maxim for all crimes really. You draw enough attention to yourself by the crime you comitt, you'll get caught. This was laid out fairly succinctly to me by Columbus Homocide after my friend's carjacking/execution (9-20-96, "T. Kacir", See Columbus Dispatch) by some local hoodrats. Had they just taken the ATM spoils and the car, they would have gotten away.
Since they upped the ante to murder however, this forced CPD's hand, and sure as sh-t, they caught them in about 5 days. They were stupid kids and didn't tie up the lose ends well, namely their fingerprints all over his car and having 45 previous charges against all 3 of them...15, 15, and 17 yrs old no less. F'ing kids...can you believe it? And to top it off, they had robbed a drive-thru a few hours prior to robbing/killing my friend.
I cannot help but think that if Tony could've armed himself, he might have had a chance after he dropped me off, but that woudl be a conceal/carry permit. Not sure.
For home defense and the like, I don't see why you'd need steel or mercury tipped, teflon coated, crazy sabbots, all manner of munitions. You already have the advantage of knowing where all the good hiding spots are (home field advantage) even in the dark of night. An armed burglar (a dumb one btw; gun spec radically increases sentencing for B&E and larceny) typically only knows the outside of your house and has many reservations about making loud noises...like BANG. Homeowners defending their families, let alone their property, do not.
For hunters, I mean, damn...hollow points and varying degrees of buckshot, but you don't need Black Talons or other contraband ammo to fell a deer.
But, if you feel compelled to have unorthodox ammo, I guess some mitigating circumstances might allow it. It's just, you're going in a book somewhere for good AND ill. It raises a few eyebrows understandably, yes?
And if it did get down to an armed insurection as hypothesized earlier, you'd want rifles against federal troops anyway, not handguns, though you make do w/ what you got. We'd capture munitions too.
Related: This always baffled me. During the Cold War, it was understood that you had 2 choices really; NATO Pact & Warsaw Pact weapons & ammo. The catch is, Warsaw Pact weaponry, specifically the chambers & barrels of their guns are just a hair bigger so. Basically, it means they could use any captured .308 or like calibres from out rstock piles in their equipment, but we couldn't use their's in our's. Very practical.
Just like us spending alot of $ to find pens that will right in 0-G for space flight...they said screw it, we'll use pencils. We overthink the solution.
Ancient/Modern Legal Documentation: Uh, gonna' go w/ Hammurabi's Code of Laws. Precident, simple enough. Not sure about it's bearing here, but pretty much all major govt's borrow from it at some point or another.
Is there any previous legislation that flirts w/ the 2nd Amendment from older/ancient times?
I'm only privy to a few:
-Papacy outlawing x-bows due to their simplicty and deadliness during their advent and then reinstating them during the Crusades.
-England outlawing golf if you can believe it. It became so popular that it interfered w/ the national past time of archery. That is, they wanted a higher degree of preparedness from the citizenry when mobilized for warfare.
Oh, I would argue that document is the most important political document in human history.
I would probably argue against that. My argument is that there are so many political documents in all of human history calling it the most important would be the height of arrogance. Every constitution written including the Iriquois Confederacy to the United States constitution would also have to be included as a political document. Yes it's important, but it's going to take Solomon to determine which is the most important.
Remember the document itself would never had been written (by the committee of the Continental Congress) without a whole number of other documents written by the colonists in support of independence. (Including Payne's "Common Sense" which is an important document but not the most important document in the evolution of the declaration.) Likewise the Constitution would never had been approved without the support generated from the Federalist Papers.
(And this is just the United States history, the world has some equally interesting political documents as well.)
I would probably argue against that. My argument is that there are so many political documents in all of human history calling it the most important would be the height of arrogance.
No, it's just a personal value judgement. All importance is in the context of values. There are also many, many bad things in this world, but I do not give them the gravitas of importance. It is not arrogance because I am not telling other people what they should value, if that was your thinking.
And strangely enough, not one single mention of the Articles of Confederation that existed between the the Declaration and the Constitution. People don't understand that the United States did have another document in between. People seldom even learn that the founding fathers' first attempt had to be wiped from the books after just a few years. The Constitution was never a final draft, more of a work in progress. Just be mindful of the parts that get edited....
This isn't meant to attack you, but I think this is a really pretentious statement. 1) Everyone I know knows about the Articles of Confederation. It's not like not knowing what exactly the Magna Carta is or something. 2) Why would anyone mention them here? The articles were a failed experiment whose only relevance today is for the historian to shed some light onto the evolution of Constitution. I've read them once in my constitutional law class. But if you don't study American history seriously or if are a law student, I see no reason why one would think they are at all important in any fashion.
What do you mean by the constitution being a work in progress? Do you mean that the drafters meant to come back and "finish it?" Or do you mean that it was supposed to be a living document, with an amendment process?
I'd say the Torah would be very important as it is the basis fro western law, rather than the Hadrian's code.
And the Koran is definitely more of a political document... it provides methods for warfare, the division of loot and urges the Muslim to commit jihad.
to the important book discussion:
I'd say the Torah would be very important as it is the basis fro western law, rather than the Hadrian's code.
And the torah is definitely more of a political document... it provides methods for warfare, the division of loot and urges the Muslim to commit jihad.
So basically sum it up as damn Judaism for influencing Christianity
damn Christianity and Judaism for influencing Islam.
and damn Mesopotamian and Babylonian beliefs for influencing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam!
Or do you mean that it was supposed to be a living document, with an amendment process?
Umm, isn't that exactly what we do?
And the torah is definitely more of a political document... it provides methods for warfare, the division of loot and urges the Muslim to commit jihad.
The Koran is Islam's holy book. The Torah is Jewish. Your error obviously shows that you know diddly squat about either. You'll have to pardon me if I ignore anything you have to say in the matter when discussing Islam. Don't think I'm being mean in saying it, but that is a pretty clear-cut demonstration that you're just spewing the crap you hear rather than taking the time to read it and judge for yourself.
Although I must say, I did have one heck of a giggle picturing an ultra-orthodox Rabbi ranting, raving and foaming at the mouth declaring Jihad.
Thanks!