Should STY get a machine gun?

USFREEDOM911 said:
Like I said, I've been edumacated and all those gun deaths are a result of the goberments weapon ban.
Click to expand...
In short, you have nothing intelligent to add to the topic, so you'll try to shift the topic to the effect of black markets on violent crime in some lame attempt to relate the firearms black market to the drug black market.

Just shows that edumacation is wasted on idiots and fools.
 
Good Luck said:
In short, you have nothing intelligent to add to the topic, so you'll try to shift the topic to the effect of black markets on violent crime in some lame attempt to relate the firearms black market to the drug black market.

Just shows that edumacation is wasted on idiots and fools.
Click to expand...

NO-NO-NO; I've seen how the gun ban has led to so many problems and they belong to those that created the ban.
 
Good Luck said:
And

Anyone could - and some did - own common artillery pieces. A 10 pounder was not an uncommon purchase, and, yes, the shells used in these pieces from solid shot to grape shot canisters to the newly invented exploding shell were available to those who wished to purchase them. If there had been a "Walmart" type merchantry back then, they probably would have carried such shells. Just as Walmart today SHOULD have the right to sell hand grenades and other weaponry of the common soldier.





The early U.S. not only trusted its citizens with "every other terrible implement of the soldier," but depended on them to assure freedom, unless they, as individuals, proved otherwise - in which case they were incarcerated or executed.

Too bad you have bought into the fear mongering of the totalitarians.
Click to expand...

Coxe and Webster weren't Founders. Hamilton and Henry didn't mention cannon in your quotes.
 
Southern Man said:
Coxe and Webster weren't Founders. Hamilton and Henry didn't mention cannon in your quotes.
Click to expand...
Ignorance only makes you look stupid.

Tenche Coxe was the Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress in 1788-89. That makes him one of the founders. Webster was a well know political commentator, federalist spokesman. While not a delegate, he, too, is considered among the founders.

And what, exactly, do you think Hamilton means by the phrase "little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms," when he says
...that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights...
Click to expand...
? If the people are to have weapons "little, if at all inferior" to those carried by the army, how can that NOT include cannons?

And what arms does Patrick Henry refer to when he says:
If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
Click to expand...
? Clearly, the arms of a standing army. And he says the MOST trusted hands for those arms is the people. Since the army has cannon, then so should the people.

Of course, if they HAD mentioned cannon, you ignorant totalitarian fucks would use the fact to again imply they did not anticipate modern weapons. But the fact is, they knew weapons would make some advances. Hell, they'd SEEN advances in weapons, such as the exploding cannon shell in place of solid shot. So, it is clear they made room for that in their arguments. They did not list the weapons of a standing army specifically because those would change over time (they didn't know how MUCH change, but they knew firearms would change.) So, they state, quite plainly, that firearms available to the people must be the equivalent of those carried by a standing army, so as to assure the people will always have the means to defend liberty against a government bent on tyranny.

You are totally ignorant of history. Learn, then try again to debate.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
Ignorance only makes you look stupid.

Tenche Coxe was the delegate to the Continental Congress in 1788-89. That makes him one of the founders. Webster was a well know political commentator, federalist spokesman. While not a delegate, he, too, is considered among the founders.

And what, exactly, do you think Hamilton means by the phrase "little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms," when he says ? If the people are to have weapons "little, if at all inferior" to those carried by the army, how can that NOT include cannons?

And what arms does Patrick Henry refer to when he says:
? Clearly, the arms of a standing army. And he says the MOST trusted hands for those arms is the people. Since the army has cannon, then so should the people.

Of course, if they HAD mentioned cannon, you ignorant totalitarian fucks would use the fact to again imply they did not anticipate modern weapons. But the fact is, they knew weapons would make some advances. Hell, they'd SEEN advances in weapons, such as the exploding cannon shell in place of solid shot. So, it is clear they made room for that in their arguments. They did not list the weapons of a standing army specifically because those would change over time (they didn't know how MUCH change, but they knew firearms would change.) So, they state, quite plainly, that firearms available to the people must be the equivalent of those carried by a standing army, so as to assure the people will always have the means to defend liberty against a government bent on tyranny.

You are totally ignorant of history. Learn, then try again to debate.
Click to expand...

Well said, GoodLuck.
 
Good Luck said:
Ignorance only makes you look stupid.

Tenche Coxe was the Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress in 1788-89. That makes him one of the founders.
Click to expand...

How ironic. Coxe wasn't a member of the Constitutional Congress, and therefore not a Founder. With regards to the Founder's quotes, if they had meant cannon they would have been more explicit.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
How ironic. Coxe wasn't a member of the Constitutional Congress, and therefore not a Founder. With regards to the Founder's quotes, if they had meant cannon they would have been more explicit.
Click to expand...

The fact that they didn't list all the items a soldier has access to is not relevant.

"...the people are to have weapons "little, if at all inferior" to those carried by the army..."

Whatever the army had the citizens should have. You want to limit freedoms to what is expressly stated in detail?

By that logic, why not ban all firearms except those carried by armies in 1776?
 
Again, its where you draw the line. Not many would think that folks should have nukes, or even a Predator in their backyards. Since full auto weapons are highly regulated and still uncommon in crimes against private citizens, it doesn't make a lot of sense to make them widely available.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, its where you draw the line. Not many would think that folks should have nukes, or even a Predator in their backyards. Since full auto weapons are highly regulated and still uncommon in crimes against private citizens, it doesn't make a lot of sense to make them widely available.
Click to expand...

Now this I can agree with. Using a common sense approach tothe problem is fine.

Its the "the founding fathers did not envision..." that opens the door to problems.
 
The Founders didn't envision Predators either. Nor automatic weapons. Even a cannon was simply a weapon of intimidation, ineffective at mass murder.
 
Southern Man said:
The Founders didn't envision Predators either. Nor automatic weapons. Even a cannon was simply a weapon of intimidation, ineffective at mass murder.
Click to expand...

And using that logic can get any number of guaranteed freedoms flushed down the toilet.

Trying to base laws on what the founding fathers may or may not have envisioned is lunacy. Especially since you try to disallow what the founding fathers said because they did not mention something specifically.
 
the founders crafted the 2nd Amendment with the thought in mind of ensuring that a standing army could not be used against them and win, therefore it only can be surmised that the founders believed that free citizens should be equally armed to a standing military member, or better.
 
No. Basing laws on the Founder's intent is sound principle. The fact that liberals ignore the Founders principles when interpreting the Constitution is what's gotten this country into so much trouble.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the founders crafted the 2nd Amendment with the thought in mind of ensuring that a standing army could not be used against them and win, therefore it only can be surmised that the founders believed that free citizens should be equally armed to a standing military member, or better.
Click to expand...
Good point, but by that logic we should have Predators and such. So where would you draw the line?
 
Southern Man said:
No. Basing laws on the Founder's intent is sound principle. The fact that liberals ignore the Founders principles when interpreting the Constitution is what's gotten this country into so much trouble.
Click to expand...

But you were not talking about the founder's intent. You were talking about what they could imagine in the future. That is a very different thing.


And, as has been said by several people, the founders wanted an armed population capable of insuring that the gov't was never capable of becoming too powerful. That means the citizens being armed well enough to take down a standing army.

That was the founders intent.
 
Southern Man said:
Good point, but by that logic we should have Predators and such. So where would you draw the line?
Click to expand...

when people make the suggestion of predators, tanks, and nukes, one has to wonder if they really think that the US government would send that kind of artillery and weaponry against US citizens. I find it extremely unlikely that they would do so. I do find it easy to believe that they would send military units armed with automatic weapons against american citizens though.

the problem we would run in to is one of escalation. how far would the feds go to maintain power and authority over us? answer that one, and we can then set the line of what weapons we should have. especially since posse comitatus doesn't mean anything anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top