*JPP bomb thrown*

Watermark said:
IMHO, shooting 16 year olds in the back as they attempt to flee is 100% in the public interest.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, he was convicted correctly because he couldn't rely on self-defence, mainly because he wasn't defending himself from attack so much as exacting revenge.
 
I can't read these threads. It genuinely hurts me to see how far we have gone from our principles and how eagerly some defend these departures.
 
Southern Man said:
Are they mentioned in the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...

are they not "arms"?

arm
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
Date: 13th century
1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense

do we not have the right, then, to keep them and bear them?
 
Last edited:
moderate democrat said:
are they not "arms"?

arm
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
Date: 13th century
1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense

do we not have the right, then, to keep them and bear them?
Click to expand...
Actually, the word from Amendment II is capitalized, giving it specific meaning. I think this is best defined by Hamilton in Federalist 28, when he wrote of people taking back control of a government that had usurped the will of the People. He was obviously talking about individual weapons, such as knives, swords, battle axes, and firearms. :
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
Click to expand...
 
I see nothing there that would prevent a citizen from having a rocket launcher mounted on his front porch to repel home invaders.

Isn't it all about society drawing a line somewhere?
 
The previous "Assault Weapons Ban" was a joke. It did two things. First, it provided a solution to a problem that didn't exists. And second, it provided a minor inconvenience to people wanting certain semi-automatic weapons.


Prior to the ban rifles that fit the descrption of an "assault weapon" accounted for less than 1% of murders in the USA.

During the ban rifles that fit the descrption of an "assault weapon" accounted for less than 1% of murders in the USA.

After the ban rifles that fit the descrption of an "assault weapon" accounted for less than 1% of murders in the USA.




So what was accomplished? It created more paperwork for an industry that is already deluged with it. It created a "feel good" piece of legislation that actually did nothing. And it limited access to certain weapons and accessories for law abiding citizens.

Its a waste of time.
 
maineman said:
I see nothing there that would prevent a citizen from having a rocket launcher mounted on his front porch to repel home invaders.

Isn't it all about society drawing a line somewhere?
Click to expand...

Who gets to draw that line? The problem with drawing lines is that the ones who make the most noise and have the most emotional appeal are often the ones who prevail.
 
moderate democrat said:
I see nothing there that would prevent a citizen from having a rocket launcher mounted on his front porch to repel home invaders.

Isn't it all about society drawing a line somewhere?
Click to expand...
A rocket launcher isn't an arm that a Person would defend himself against, or attack, an individual with. How many citizens had a comparable weapon in 1787?
 
Solitary said:
The previous "Assault Weapons Ban" was a joke. It did two things. First, it provided a solution to a problem that didn't exists. And second, it provided a minor inconvenience to people wanting certain semi-automatic weapons.


Prior to the ban rifles that fit the descrption of an "assault weapon" accounted for less than 1% of murders in the USA.

During the ban rifles that fit the descrption of an "assault weapon" accounted for less than 1% of murders in the USA.

After the ban rifles that fit the descrption of an "assault weapon" accounted for less than 1% of murders in the USA.




So what was accomplished? It created more paperwork for an industry that is already deluged with it. It created a "feel good" piece of legislation that actually did nothing. And it limited access to certain weapons and accessories for law abiding citizens.

Its a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Out of all of the posts on this thread I like this one the best. And your last paragraph....great. I had a Grendel 22 mag pistol before the ban went into effect. It is a mediocre gun that shoots ok but might be prone to jam if not kept really clean. This gun was banned under the so-called assault weapons ban....clip capacity. As a result I received $700 for a gun that cost me around $200 that I had shot thousands of rounds through. I don't want an "assault weapon." I hate the pictures in American Hunter and Outdoor Life of the hunters using them to take deer. To me that isn't the typical hunter. But I don't want those guy's freedom to use their weapon of choice thwarted by "feel good" legislation that bans certain guns for their looks.
 
Southern Man said:
A rocket launcher isn't an arm that a Person would defend himself against, or attack, an individual with. How many citizens had a comparable weapon in 1787?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Was there a comparable weapon to a full automatic assault rifle in 1787? Of course not.

A rocket launcher is an "arm". I certainly could use it to defend my home and that defense does not need to be against an individual but any number of individuals... members of a foreign invading army, for example. A satchel nuke would do well in that scenario as well.
 
maineman said:
politics is an exercise in drawing and redrawing lines, is it not?
Click to expand...

Except this line was drawn in the US Constitution. So it does not get redrawn every time someone is killed or some politician wants points.
 
leaningright said:
Out of all of the posts on this thread I like this one the best. And your last paragraph....great. I had a Grendel 22 mag pistol before the ban went into effect. It is a mediocre gun that shoots ok but might be prone to jam if not kept really clean. This gun was banned under the so-called assault weapons ban....clip capacity. As a result I received $700 for a gun that cost me around $200 that I had shot thousands of rounds through. I don't want an "assault weapon." I hate the pictures in American Hunter and Outdoor Life of the hunters using them to take deer. To me that isn't the typical hunter. But I don't want those guy's freedom to use their weapon of choice thwarted by "feel good" legislation that bans certain guns for their looks.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, Leaning. And it is cosmetics, more than anything, that got a rifle on the ban list.

I also agree concerning what hunting rifles are distasteful.
 
maineman said:
Irrelevant. Was there a comparable weapon to a full automatic assault rifle in 1787? Of course not.

A rocket launcher is an "arm". I certainly could use it to defend my home and that defense does not need to be against an individual but any number of individuals... members of a foreign invading army, for example. A satchel nuke would do well in that scenario as well.
Click to expand...

In 1787 the citizens had weapons that were basically the same as the ones carried by the military.
 
Solitary said:
In 1787 the citizens had weapons that were basically the same as the ones carried by the military.
Click to expand...

so what? are you saying that, with every advance of hand held weapons technology developed for our military, we should loosen gun control laws to allow civilians to have those same weapons?
 
Solitary said:
Except this line was drawn in the US Constitution. So it does not get redrawn every time someone is killed or some politician wants points.
Click to expand...


and I would suggest that the "arms" that I have a right to own include anything that is defined as an "arm", therefore. Who interprets what that word "arms" means if not the body politic or the courts?
 
maineman said:
so what? are you saying that, with every advance of hand held weapons technology developed for our military, we should loosen gun control laws to allow civilians to have those same weapons?
Click to expand...

No, that is what you are saying. I was merely pointing out that your comparison to the arms of 1787 was not valid.
 
maineman said:
so what? are you saying that, with every advance of hand held weapons technology developed for our military, we should loosen gun control laws to allow civilians to have those same weapons?
Click to expand...

Actually, you are making the argument that with each advance in handheld weapons technology we should restrict our laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top