OT - No First Ammendment in NO

The problem the ACLU claims to have with the 2nd Amendment is that they feel if it truly guarantees individual weapons rights, it guarantees the right to own all (ICBMs, etc) weapons.

This is overly simplistic and does not take into account other tenets of the Constitution. The Constitution specifically placed the most powerful weapon of the day, the ship of war, under direct Congressional control. Even an individual state as a whole could not keep one without Congressional approval.

A logical extrapolation of this is that the intent of the Constitutional Fathers was to allow personal ownership of infantry weapons, but not personal (unapproved) ownership of more powerful and longer-ranged weapons, what I would call "instruments of policy". In my mind, a small-caliber automatic cannon would be permissible, but an armed main battle tank would not be. A LAW or RPG would be permissible, but an armed bomber would not be. Armed ships are a little harder; I suppose in my universe/nation, defensive armament (AA MGs or cannon) would be unrestricted, but offensive weaponry (Tomahawk missiles, 12" guns) would be controlled.

About the only way I can see to accomplish this, would be some caliber or range restriction; perhaps civilians would have unrestricted access to weapons that fired projectiles weighing no more than 9 lbs, and not capable of firing over 7000 meters effectively. This would mean everyone could have their own 81mm mortars and M2 Brownings, but not 105mm cannon or 120mm mortars.

Now that I've probably managed to alienate EVERYONE concerned about this issue, I have things to do.

John
 
Last night when I wrote that...

I was kinda tired and sad.

Just last week, politicians were spouting non-sense about National Guardsmen coming back from Iraq...and being "locked and loaded and ready to use lethal force..." in NO?!?

I kept thinking...Wait...you mean American soldiers are gonna fire on Americans on American soil?

I kept flashing on the old clips of the Kent State shootings...and couldn't make sense of it at all.

Now...it goes a step further. Forcing folks out of there homes...taking guns away...it just seems like the erosion has gone so far...it is like the levees...once they are breeched...there's no holding it back...

The fear of the modern world seems to hold some people paralyzed...all they can do is hope somebody will protect them...so they will do anything...for the fear to go away.

Just a few generations ago...the whole country would have gotten pissed and taken care of itself...

Now our country is filled with...well...never mind.

Maybe people like us will make the difference in the future of our counrty...

But then I look at places like Ruby Ridge...and Waco...and at people like the
Freemen up in Montana. Those folks...lost it all. They will never be known as patriots...nobody will ever shout those names in remeberance...on the 4th of July...

OK I'm done...and I don't guess these comments are much welcomed in the Cantina.

You guys take care.

Shane
 
Shane Justice and Spectre, I for one am not p!ssed off as I happen to agree. The world is changing rapidly and we as a people are for the most part soft and unwilling to help our individual selves. Its sad because I know that I will survive as will my daughter who is extremely strong and self reliant. It is for our children's children that I feel so badly.

Ice
 
I don't think that I realized what I would start with this thread.

I was concerned about our PRESENT government is acting to take guns away from folks who really need them.

I was in New Orleans about 1 month ago, and enjoyed the food, drinks and music on Bourbon Street. The sightseeing was great.

I recall surpise at an advertisement in the paper for homes - a selling point was that they were on high ground and would never flood.

The authorities in NO are now telling people that they can't stay in their homes on high ground, as in the French Quarter. They are taking away their guns.

There are people there with a years supply of food and water, the area is dry and secure, and there is no threat of illness. They stocked up for a great catastrophe. These are the people who are self sufficient and planned for this sort of crisis. A nurse was told she must leave her home and give up her job at a hospital that is still functioning.

But the locals and the Feds are telling them that they must leave.

So much for our rights...

If you thought, as many did, that our present government would protect our second ammendment rights, well that is not happening. Responsibility for the loss of the second ammendment goes right to the top.
 
If you beleive your govt has your best interests in mind...call you folks in DC...

Tell them what you think ...see what happens....

I have no doubt you will be added to a list somewhere...and like as not you will be ignored...

Shane
 
Spectre said:
The problem the ACLU claims to have with the 2nd Amendment is that they feel if it truly guarantees individual weapons rights, it guarantees the right to own all (ICBMs, etc) weapons.

This is overly simplistic and does not take into account other tenets of the Constitution. The Constitution specifically placed the most powerful weapon of the day, the ship of war, under direct Congressional control. Even an individual state as a whole could not keep one without Congressional approval.

A logical extrapolation of this is that the intent of the Constitutional Fathers was to allow personal ownership of infantry weapons, but not personal (unapproved) ownership of more powerful and longer-ranged weapons, what I would call "instruments of policy". In my mind, a small-caliber automatic cannon would be permissible, but an armed main battle tank would not be. A LAW or RPG would be permissible, but an armed bomber would not be. Armed ships are a little harder; I suppose in my universe/nation, defensive armament (AA MGs or cannon) would be unrestricted, but offensive weaponry (Tomahawk missiles, 12" guns) would be controlled.

About the only way I can see to accomplish this, would be some caliber or range restriction; perhaps civilians would have unrestricted access to weapons that fired projectiles weighing no more than 9 lbs, and not capable of firing over 7000 meters effectively. This would mean everyone could have their own 81mm mortars and M2 Brownings, but not 105mm cannon or 120mm mortars.

Now that I've probably managed to alienate EVERYONE concerned about this issue, I have things to do.

John
Click to expand...

I had not heard about the restriction on warships before...

If that is correct, then the rest makes a lot of sense...
 
Green Ice said:
Shane Justice and Spectre, I for one am not p!ssed off as I happen to agree. The world is changing rapidly and we as a people are for the most part soft and unwilling to help our individual selves. Its sad because I know that I will survive as will my daughter who is extremely strong and self reliant. It is for our children's children that I feel so badly.

Ice
Click to expand...

I agree also...
 
Brother "Justice," try this:

I live in the freest country on earth. If YOU think otherwise, name a freer place.

Also, it takes a big brass pair to judge others as less than lucid (i.e, irrational, "nuts") simply because they disagree with your theatrically dark view of the state of things.

For years, the power of the federal government has been whittled away by the Supreme Court. It is unlikely that the next two appointments will reverse that trend. If anything, the trend will be strengthened.

The highwater mark of the antigun crowd was the Brady Bill. I am old enough to remember the predictions of worse to come. Then we got the silly "Assault Weapons Ban," which somehow did not ban the military semi-auto rifles I subsequently bought or the "banned" hi-cap magazines I bought for rifles and pistols. Yet, "See," the doom-and-gloom crowd said, "It's happening. They will take our guns." INSTEAD, the right to concealed carry is at a record high for a period going back several generations, the AWB died with only the left fringe to decry it's passing, a federal law to ban suits vs. gun manufacturers (which Teddy deGrosse said would pass "over my dead body") passed OVERWELMINGLY. Just what is it you would like to buy that you cannot? Nothing much that you could ever buy over the last 70 years.

Vigilance to protect necessary civil rights ought to be distinguished from constantly viewiing with alarm or you're going to get 2d Amendment burnout (The NRA does not understand that, but it has a budget to meet - in part from me :rolleyes: )


And, IMO, if we traded our wealth for anything, we traded it for material THINGS.

My $.02.
 
Thomas, do you have any more spare change in your pocket I could have?







munk
 
Dear Thomas Linton,

Not sure if using quotes around my name meant you believe it is a made up pretend name...it is not....I use my given Chritian name...the one I got when I was born...

As I already said...I was tired and sad...

I won't try to say this country isn't thr free-set ...it is however the last...

As far as the lucid comment...sometimes it seems that way...like the whole world is asleep to what we are losing...

As far as the rest of it...

I respect your thoughts.

Like I said...I am tired...maybe I don't see it as clearly as you seem to...

I am old enough to remeber the Brady Bill...and the Ban...as well.

But do me a favor...if you wanna jump my ass in the future...just say...

"Hey Shane...get some sleep...you're losing it."

Sarcasm doesn't really work for me.

Shane
 
Semper Fi said:
Anybody heard of..."You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" ?

I would add..."and after you crawl over the dead bodies to get to me."

I'll never disarm. No way. No how.
Click to expand...
If it comes to that, like minded persons should stick together. Look for a old green pickup....I got'cher back, brother...and I'm bringing extra ammo.
 
Shane,

No sarcasm intended on my part.

And I didn't know if it was your name or a "handle."

Get some sleep. :D
 
spectre said:
About the only way I can see to accomplish this, would be some caliber or range restriction; perhaps civilians would have unrestricted access to weapons that fired projectiles weighing no more than 9 lbs, and not capable of firing over 7000 meters effectively. This would mean everyone could have their own 81mm mortars and M2 Brownings, but not 105mm cannon or 120mm mortars.
Click to expand...

aw, shucks, does this mean i have to give back my battleship? just got all the fuzes on the 16in RAP shells polished and the tomahawks all gussied up & rarin' to go....and they just delivered the barbary duck breast fillets for the crews mess too!

gee, i never get to have any fun.....
 
I want a mortar!!! :D ;)

I ranted about this in one of the other Katrina threads. The part that burns me is private security is allowed to carry. So the rich guy can hire someone to protect (and possibly die for) him, but the middle class and poor get hung out to dry. Or soak, in the present situation.

I was reading the NYTimes today. You know it's bad when bug-out bags show up in the Times, and guns are listed (although they did say you shouldn't include one if you're not familiar with it. Pretty sage advice.) I'm still pretty annoyed that the Red Cross thinks knives are "too dangerous" to include in a disaster kit. Tell that to the people who had to hack their way out of attics to escape rising water. Wonder how the average disaster kit SAK or Leatherman would handle that. :eek: :rolleyes: :D
 
Those waters rise fast. You'd better pray there's a khuk in the disaster kit if you want through your roof anytime soon.






munk
 
Sorry guys...I been painting these last couple of weeks...no down time.

You see...We have a baby due in November...and I'm running around trying to get ready...which also means my in-laws (good people) will be here for a few weeks.

SO I been busting tail...

I cautioned a bunch of guys once in the Cantina about discussing what guns they have...and where they are...I just don't think a public forum is the right place for that...

So to, I would say discussions that use the words..."from my cold dead fingers"...

Maybe it is paranoid...but I do know if any of us was to get into trouble...all of this stuff is great fodder for court records and DA's.

Having said that....

I think one of the reasons hi cap mags are selling...is because folks are getting while they can...because it can't last forever.

COnceal permits( I got one...for the first time in my life...after carrying for 20 years without) because I wanted to be responsible...and I don't have the bread for the fine.

If you guys want I will post the stories of the two times I have been held at gun point...just for frame of reference...

As far as giving up my guns...dang.

I will do all I can to protect all of our rights...so it doesn't happen.

Shane
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top