Should STY get a machine gun?

SmarterThanYou said:
the confiscation was indeed sanctioned by the new orleans government. the shootings, i'm not surprised that the city government jettisoned those cops quickly.

regardless, it was government agents that perpetrated the crimes.
Click to expand...

The confiscation was indeed perpetrated by the liberal democrat government. Citizens who ignored that "order" should be commended.

The cops are currently in jail, yes?
 
Southern Man said:
The confiscation was indeed perpetrated by the liberal democrat government. Citizens who ignored that "order" should be commended.

The cops are currently in jail, yes?
Click to expand...

the chief of police who issued the order for confiscation resigned, no charges ever filed. no police officers were ever charged for any confiscation of weapons. the city of new orleans lost the lawsuit and then implemented a process that required proof of ownership for any weapon to be returned.

the cops that shot civilians on the bridge.....there are 6 murder indictments and a continuing federal investigation.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the chief of police who issued the order for confiscation resigned, no charges ever filed. no police officers were ever charged for any confiscation of weapons. the city of new orleans lost the lawsuit and then implemented a process that required proof of ownership for any weapon to be returned.

the cops that shot civilians on the bridge.....there are 6 murder indictments and a continuing federal investigation.
Click to expand...
So the local government learned its lesson- until next time.
 
Southern Man said:
The confiscation was indeed perpetrated by the liberal democrat government. Citizens who ignored that "order" should be commended.

The cops are currently in jail, yes?
Click to expand...

In another thread you say "In times of war government must sometimes step on the toes of citizens", and now you want to blame the liberals?

You expect the gov't to preserve the things you want and ignore the US Constitution when it suits you.



What the New Orleans police did should be prosecutable and those confiscating the guns should be in jail.
 
Southern Man said:
Coxe served only briefly in the Continental Congress. He was hardly influential enough to be called a Founder. Civilians are not going to line up neatly to get killed by grape shot.
Click to expand...
Coxe was a prolific political writer of the times. Several of hi writings are included in the federalist papers.

But even throwing Coxes opinion(s) out of this argument, what have you to say about Hamilton? Or Patrick Henry? Gonna say they aren't founders, too? Because it is quite obvious they agree with Coxe that the citizenry should have access to every arm available to a standing army.

And I can only conclude you are as ignorant of weaponry as you are of history. Grape shot doesn't require people to line up. A 10 pounder with a grape shot canister is like a 3" sawed-off shotgun firing 50X .65 caliber pellets. They could cut a swath through a line of close-order troops 15 feet wide and three lines deep. In short, people do not have to "line up" to have a cannon firing grape shot perform quite well in taking out a whole slew of people with one boom.

I will say this about limiting arms to the people: I believe that there should be a limit on any weapon or weapons system which involves classified technology. I also believe certain weapons should have a required training class included in its purchase. LAW rockets, for instance are not something one just picks up and uses without training.

Otherwise, the only reason for limiting access to the people is based on mindless fear and mistrust, and or liberal intent of an eventual totalitarian socialist state. Funny how you trust the government, who has a history of screwing you over, more than your neighbors whose history is most likely leaving you alone.

(Or, have you given your neighbors reasons that make you nervous about their arms collection?:cof1:)
 
Good Luck said:
Coxe was a prolific political writer of the times. Several of hi writings are included in the federalist papers.

But even throwing Coxes opinion(s) out of this argument, what have you to say about Hamilton? Or Patrick Henry? Gonna say they aren't founders, too? Because it is quite obvious they agree with Coxe that the citizenry should have access to every arm available to a standing army.

And I can only conclude you are as ignorant of weaponry as you are of history. Grape shot doesn't require people to line up. A 10 pounder with a grape shot canister is like a 3" sawed-off shotgun firing 50X .65 caliber pellets. They could cut a swath through a line of close-order troops 15 feet wide and three lines deep. In short, people do not have to "line up" to have a cannon firing grape shot perform quite well in taking out a whole slew of people with one boom.

I will say this about limiting arms to the people: I believe that there should be a limit on any weapon or weapons system which involves classified technology. I also believe certain weapons should have a required training class included in its purchase. LAW rockets, for instance are not something one just picks up and uses without training.

Otherwise, the only reason for limiting access to the people is based on mindless fear and mistrust, and or liberal intent of an eventual totalitarian socialist state. Funny how you trust the government, who has a history of screwing you over, more than your neighbors whose history is most likely leaving you alone.

(Or, have you given your neighbors reasons that make you nervous about their arms collection?:cof1:)
Click to expand...

As I said before, I don't think Hamilton or Henry agreed with you to the extent that the less influential Coxe did. The obviously "drew the line" further towards hand-held weapons of the time. Exactly where is total conjecture by anyone.
 
Southern Man said:
As I said before, I don't think Hamilton or Henry agreed with you to the extent that the less influential Coxe did. The obviously "drew the line" further towards hand-held weapons of the time. Exactly where is total conjecture by anyone.
Click to expand...

i would have to disagree with you. coxe, and others, prior to actual ratification wrote several articles and papers detailing both the constitution and the bill of rights for all people to read before delegates voted to ratify in each state. Those writings were pretty clear in stating that the federal government would have zero power or authority to deny any arms to the people.

unless you have some secret documentation stating otherwise, the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i would have to disagree with you. coxe, and others, prior to actual ratification wrote several articles and papers detailing both the constitution and the bill of rights for all people to read before delegates voted to ratify in each state. Those writings were pretty clear in stating that the federal government would have zero power or authority to deny any arms to the people.

unless you have some secret documentation stating otherwise, the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear.
Click to expand...
Its already been determined that Coxe was pretty adamant about wanting all forms of arms. However, he was not influential enough to be considered a "Founder", never mind that he wasn't a member of the Constitutional Convention.

The 2nd Amendment says "arms". Its widely agreed that this doesn't include weapons of mass destruction. So there is a line being drawn. You and I disagree on where the line is.

My position is that this currently does not include full auto weapons. This is because there are 10 or 20 times more gun owners than active military, so The People have the capability to subdue the military if they so choose. Also, since these weapons are well regulated and rarely used in activities where citizens are defending their personal property or persons, their ownership by said persons is unnecessary. If, in the future, these weapons do become necessary, then my position would be reconsidered.

This may be, according to you and Good Luck, a "liberal" point of view, but it is also a reasonable one, and demonstrates why many Conservatives actually hold elected positions while few Libertarians do.
 
Southern Man said:
Its already been determined that Coxe was pretty adamant about wanting all forms of arms. However, he was not influential enough to be considered a "Founder", never mind that he wasn't a member of the Constitutional Convention.

The 2nd Amendment says "arms". Its widely agreed that this doesn't include weapons of mass destruction. So there is a line being drawn. You and I disagree on where the line is.

My position is that this currently does not include full auto weapons. This is because there are 10 or 20 times more gun owners than active military, so The People have the capability to subdue the military if they so choose. Also, since these weapons are well regulated and rarely used in activities where citizens are defending their personal property or persons, their ownership by said persons is unnecessary. If, in the future, these weapons do become necessary, then my position would be reconsidered.

This may be, according to you and Good Luck, a "liberal" point of view, but it is also a reasonable one, and demonstrates why many Conservatives actually hold elected positions while few Libertarians do.
Click to expand...

and this just shows further proof that you are more of a statist than you are about freedom. As a conservative, you're just more reasonable about restricting that freedom. By choosing to remain a statist and control the types of arms that free people should have available to them, you're not adhering to the constitution.

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed-where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." -- Justice Alex Kozinski in his dissent on the case of Silveira v. Lockyer, United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, 2003
Click to expand...
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and this just shows further proof that you are more of a statist than you are about freedom. As a conservative, you're just more reasonable about restricting that freedom. By choosing to remain a statist and control the types of arms that free people should have available to them, you're not adhering to the constitution.
Click to expand...
Awesome, pulling the Nazi card. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top