Remster 30 #51 December 9, 2003 QuoteBoth guys with buckets were called home I see your 2 guys with buckets and raise you 3 guys with snow shoes. Talk about an arms race....Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #52 December 9, 2003 QuoteI see your 2 guys with buckets and raise you 3 guys with snow shoes. I see your snow shoes and raise you a hockey stick. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #53 December 9, 2003 I'll take your hockey stick and beat you with my curling stone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #54 December 9, 2003 QuoteThat is worse the the boy that took a G.I.Joe It had a gun on it and got 3 days susp. That story is no longer available at the newspaper web site, but here is the summary that I found: "A 9-year-old North Carolina student was suspended from his elementary school for three days, after bringing a toy G.I. Joe gun to class. The sight of the toy allegedly disturbed some of the other children. A school official said that they 'can't take any chances' when it is dealing with a weapon of any sort." Source: http://www.journalnow.com/wsj/news/ This toy gun was all of inch long in size, and made of plastic! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #55 December 9, 2003 QuoteLAWSUIT DISMISSED...Newark, New Jersey's lawsuit against the firearm industry has been dismissed... Meanwhile, on the other side of the nation, the 9th Circus... er... Circuit, is at it again: The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is once again up to its political shenanigans. A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court recently reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the gun industry, that had been previously tossed out by a Los Angeles federal judge before it went to trial. The suit, Ileto v. Glock, seeks to blame Glock and others for the horrendous criminal actions of deranged white supremacist Buford Furrow. In 1999, Furrow shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto, and wounded three children at a Jewish day care center in California. What is not often reported is that, while a Glock pistol was used in Furrow`s heinous crime, the gun was originally sold to a police department, which subsequently sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow. To recap: Glock manufactured and legally sold a gun to a police department. The police department later legally sold the gun to a gun dealer. The gun dealer later legally sold the gun to a collector. And then the gun ended up in the hands of a criminal. So the anti-gun folks think that this is Glock's fault, and the 9th Circuit Court seems to agree! Doh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #56 December 9, 2003 QuoteAnd what about all those pictures of men with guns in the school's history books - shouldn't they have been banned too? QuoteNope. They should be there. They represent a lesson we are failing to learn. If images of lawful gun ownership are forbidden on T-shirts in school, then why should images of the same thing in books be permitted? I think what those schools need is a good bonfire book-burning festival! Here's a closely related story: "School officials have decided they will not allow Samantha Jones, a senior, to have the picture of her choice in the school's yearbook because her photo shows her seated on a flag-draped howitzer outside a VFW club... Jones didn't pose on the howitzer wearing a black, U.S. Army T-shirt because she's a post-Columbine nut looking to blow up the school. At 17, she's a gung-ho patriot who will be inducted into the Army when she graduates... In recent years, many high school seniors have moved away from formal graduation portraits to pictures that represent their personalities or dreams. Nothing could represent her dream more than the picture of her on the howitzer, Jones said..." So why did school officials prohibit her yearbook photo? "'The picture is inappropriate,' Olson said. 'It's a picture of mass destruction.'" Source: http://www.startribune.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #57 December 9, 2003 QuoteThat isn't the lesson you'd learn about the men with guns that killed Lincoln, Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr., now is it? Sometimes freedom of speech is abused too, inciting hatred and violence, but that doesn't mean that the appropriate solution is to revoke the 1st Amendment and ban free speech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #58 December 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteThat isn't the lesson you'd learn about the men with guns that killed Lincoln, Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr., now is it? Sometimes freedom of speech is abused too, inciting hatred and violence, but that doesn't mean that the appropriate solution is to revoke the 1st Amendment and ban free speech. I'm not suggesting we revoke the 2d Amendment. I'm suggesting we adhere to it, including the often-ignored ending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #59 December 9, 2003 QuoteI'm not suggesting we revoke the 2d Amendment. I'm suggesting we adhere to it, including the often-ignored ending. "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." I agree that the "shall not be infringed" part isn't being honored by many of the stupid and restrictive gun laws on the books. Somehow, I don't think that's what you were referring to with your "often-ignored ending". I suspect that you wanted to refer to the "militia" part, but didn't remember the Amendment well enough to know that that reference comes at the beginning, rather than the end. And if we adhere to the militia connection, then that would mean that the citizens should be allowed to own the same firearms used by the regular Armed Forces, such as M-16's, with full-auto fire capability. Yet, Bill Clinton banned the so-called "assault weapons" because they are too similar to military firearms. So which is it? Do we get to own militia weapons, or not? Did Bill Clinton violate the Constitution by banning so-called "assault weapons"? I wish the anti-gun folks would make up their minds... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #60 December 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat isn't the lesson you'd learn about the men with guns that killed Lincoln, Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr., now is it? Sometimes freedom of speech is abused too, inciting hatred and violence, but that doesn't mean that the appropriate solution is to revoke the 1st Amendment and ban free speech. I'm not suggesting we revoke the 2d Amendment. I'm suggesting we adhere to it, including the often-ignored ending. See the problem here is reading comprehension. Notice the semi-colon, which was included in the original text but that has been lost over time. QuoteA 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. These are two separate statements. That there should be a well regulated militia (national guard) AND that the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED. The first part is often mis-interpreted to be the justification for the latter. However, by reviewing the Federalist Papers, you'll find that was not the intended interpretation. It was not intended that ONLY the militia have weapons. It was intended that there be a militia AND that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #61 December 9, 2003 QuoteI'm not suggesting we revoke the 2d Amendment. I'm suggesting we adhere to it, including the often-ignored ending. Like John, I'll take it that you meant the opening clause. That was one reason they passed the amendment, not the only reason. Giving one reason does not invalidate all others. You seem to be intentionally misreading it. It's like Montana. "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." That doesn't say allowing concealed carry is unconstitutional. It just says "this part of the constitution does not mean you can carry concealed weapons." It means the legislature can make laws concerning concealing weapons.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #62 December 9, 2003 Hey, Philly. I'm thinking this is one of those chain-driven roller coasters. Each camp builds their case "clank-clank-clank" up they go to the top. Then the other side puts their hands up in the air and screams "WHEEEEEEE! and slides down over the text without paying much attention. I actually prefer that new magnetic induction roller coaster action. Very smooth and fast. -Apropos of nothing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #63 December 9, 2003 Quote...Your rifle won't be that helpful against tanks, mortars, artillery, cruise missiles and the odd NBC threat a hostile force could field. Yet by saying "that helpful" you do concede it would be of some aid. Maybe next time, deal with absolutes in your arguments... Quote...Please tell me what was solved by the application of lethal force in the civil war... Actually, I might just agree with you on this one. Until the Civil War, true power resided within the states and the federal system was just a way to bind them. The Confederate States seceded as was their constitutional right, if they didn't want to be part of the country any longer. The northern states sure didn't like the possibility of a raw materials crisis, or price gouging from this splintering, so they strengthened the federal government and empowered it to go retake the states of the Confederacy. Unfortunately, ever since that time, the federal government has taken precedence and grown in strength over the states it represents. Was the loss of life really worth it, given the state of affairs we live with today? QuoteAs to the assassinations? I learned that without the firearms, the attempts might not have been successful... Yeah, right. How many guns, weapons, tanks, aircraft, bombs, etc. does the United States government own? How many specialized guns developed specifically for covert assassinations has the CIA invented or contracted for invention and development? Now, lemme ask you something else since you've learned so much: Why is Castro still alive? mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #64 December 9, 2003 QuoteNow, lemme ask you something else since you've learned so much: Why is Castro still alive? Because they didn't use guns, they tried blowing him up with toothpaste. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #65 December 9, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThat isn't the lesson you'd learn about the men with guns that killed Lincoln, Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr., now is it? Sometimes freedom of speech is abused too, inciting hatred and violence, but that doesn't mean that the appropriate solution is to revoke the 1st Amendment and ban free speech. I'm not suggesting we revoke the 2d Amendment. I'm suggesting we adhere to it, including the often-ignored ending. See the problem here is reading comprehension. Notice the semi-colon, which was included in the original text but that has been lost over time. QuoteA 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. These are two separate statements. That there should be a well regulated militia (national guard) AND that the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED. The first part is often mis-interpreted to be the justification for the latter. However, by reviewing the Federalist Papers, you'll find that was not the intended interpretation. It was not intended that ONLY the militia have weapons. It was intended that there be a militia AND that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. Sorry, the militia is not the NG. "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette (February 20, 1788) The national guard was not created until more than 100 years later. "The National Guard Bureau dates back to the turn of the century. After the Spanish-American war of 1898 which demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, as well as in the entire United States military. Secretary of War Elihu Root initiated a program of reform and reorganization in the military establishment. The impetus for reform led to the Militia Act of 1903, better known as the Dick Act. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #66 December 9, 2003 QuoteThe premise that you will stand there with a rifle and fight off another attacking nation is absurd... Your rifle won't be that helpful against tanks, mortars, artillery, cruise missiles and the odd NBC threat a hostile force could field. So I guess we won the Vietnam war then, since an indigenous force armed mostly only with small arms, couldn't possibly stand up to the mighty U.S. Armed Forces, right? And this would also mean that victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is guaranteed, and must be lurking just right around the corner! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #67 December 10, 2003 QuoteI'm not suggesting we revoke the 2d Amendment. I'm suggesting we adhere to it, including the often-ignored ending. Lets take the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and change the object which is referenced, and see if this sheds any light on the interpretation of the meaning: "Well stocked libraries, being necessary to the maintenance of an educated electorate, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."Would this phrase mean that only libraries should be allowed to have books? Not hardly. It simply says that libraries are one important reason, by way of explanation, as to why the people should also be allowed to have books. In addition, if they had meant for the right to bear arms to apply only to the militia, why do you suppose they used the word "people"? After all, this was a very smart group of people, and if they had meant to restrict the right only to the militia, they could have easily said so. If you presume that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to the militia, then we must next ask; "who is the militia?" And the founding fathers were very clear about that: the militia is the people. So saying that only the militia should have guns, is the same thing as saying that all the people should be allowed to have guns. The Constitutions of most states still endorse this concept to this day. For example, here in Texas: TEXAS STATE LAW TITLE 94 MILITIA - SOLDIERS, SAILORS AND MARINES Art. 5765. Active and reserve The militia of the this State shall be divided into two (2) classes, the active and reserve militia. The active militia shall consist of organized and uniformed military forces of this State which shall be known as the Texas National Guard or the Texas State Guard as the case may be; the reserve militia shall consist of all those liable to service in the militia, but not serving in the Texas National Guard or the Texas State Guard. Art. 5766. Who are subject All able-bodied citizens, male and female, and able-bodied males and females of foreign birth who have declared their intention to become citizens, who are residents of this State and males between eighteen and forty-five years of age and females between twenty-one and forty-five years of age, and who are not exempted by the laws of the United States or of this State, shall constitute the militia and be subject to military duty. So if you are a citizen of Texas, you are most likely a member of the state militia, and didn't even know it! In time of crisis, the Governor can call the citizen militia up for active duty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #68 December 10, 2003 QuoteSorry, the militia is not the NG. The militia and the current NG are considered to be the same thing. They are both composed of citizen soldiers whose main mission is to defend the borders of the country. The NG is just the modernized and, supposedly, better trained version of the old militia necessitated by the increasing complexity of the modern battlefield. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #69 December 10, 2003 Ummmm, that is 100% incorrect. Every able-bodied male American citizen of the age of the majority is part of the militia. Unlike the USNG, the militia is not now, nor was it ever an organization of the government. Maybe do a little reading on the subject. You might be surprised. Starting point: the Federalist Papers. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #70 December 10, 2003 QuoteQuoteSorry, the militia is not the NG. The militia and the current NG are considered to be the same thing. They are both composed of citizen soldiers whose main mission is to defend the borders of the country. The NG is just the modernized and, supposedly, better trained version of the old militia necessitated by the increasing complexity of the modern battlefield. Perhaps I should clarify or you should read the whole of my post. The "militia" I referred to was the one mentioned in the second amendment. At that time there was no NG. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #71 December 10, 2003 QuoteMaybe do a little reading on the subject. You might be surprised. Done plenty of reading. Studied the evolution of the modern US Army extensively in college (it was part of my curriculum). The NG is the modern day equivalent of the old militia. They have the same mission it is just more organized today. Try this: Quote"You are true citizen soldiers, embodying the militia heritage of our nation. You are a militia in the finest sense of the word. The constitution calls for “a well-regulated militia” and that’s what you are, supporting civil government, assisting your neighbors in times of distress, and — should it ever be necessary defending your state from its enemies. Your volunteerism, selfless service to community and state, and love of country represents all that is good about America." - The Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army (from his Keynote Address to the SGAUS, 1998 Annual Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico Quote is taken from here http://www.sgaus.org/ Also check out this: QuoteTitle 10, United States Code, Section 311: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males of at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 year of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Point taken? Of course I am not talking about these "New World Order" freaks running around the woods of Virginia claiming the Jews are running the world. They call themselves militias too. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #72 December 10, 2003 QuoteAt that time there was no NG. Well, it was there but it wasn't called the National Guard. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #73 December 10, 2003 QuoteQuoteTitle 10, United States Code, Section 311: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males of at least 17 years of age ... *** (b) The classes of the militia are - *** (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. [Scratching head] Huh? I think you said there are two militias: National Guard and everyone else. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #74 December 10, 2003 QuoteHuh? I think you said there are two militias: National Guard and everyone else. I didn't say it I copied it from United States Code ie Federal Law. Militia consists of the organized militia ie the National Guard, and the unorganized militia ie every other male US citizen between certain ages that owns a weapon. If you need it broken down any further you'll need to hire a lawyer. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #75 December 10, 2003 See, there's a big gulf between the folks who like wooden roller coasters versus the steel ones. I'm a steel roller coaster guy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
