Down to the Fourth Estate by FutureMrsFIllion

I agree with everything but this:

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
The Framers gave us a free press as the final safety net if all other checks and balances in the three branches of government should fail.

The final safety net is the second amendment, not the first.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:31 PM

Amen to that Fred, but...
Who's gonna win: a passle of folk with deer rifles,
or a few Apache attack choppers?
If our Armed Forces get bought off at the top, then
no ammendment is going to help the People turn this
around.
I once read an article detailing the number of US soldiers who would kill un-armed American civilians if given the order. Can't remember the percentage, but it was damn unsettling.
Could be we're good and fsck'd

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Amen to that Fred, but...
Who's gonna win: a passle of folk with deer rifles,
or a few Apache attack choppers?

They still haven't beat the insurgency in Iraq. Attacking civilians in populated areas would only cause greater unrest, greater unrest fuels the revolution. The biggest problem that would face any revolutionaries here is not the technological and numerical superiority of the Army, but apathy, most people just don't care enough to stand up and fight for themselves.

Quote:
If our Armed Forces get bought off at the top, then
no ammendment is going to help the People turn this
around.
I once read an article detailing the number of US soldiers who would kill un-armed American civilians if given the order. Can't remember the percentage, but it was damn unsettling.

While many soldiers would probably be willing to attack a small group in an isolated incident or two I don't think that the majority would have the stomach for a drawnout battle against their countrymen. All it would take would be a few soldiers turning to split and probably (hopefully) paralyze the military.

Quote:
Could be we're good and fsck'd

No could be about it, regardless of which party takes control we still have a club of elitist assholes who don't give a damn about the country.

"where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:47 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

I am not so sure about that STDOUBT. I know a lot of soldiers and they are all aware that they can not follow an unlawful order. I can't see many of them shooting unarmed americans. Unless of course we are talking about unseasoned warriors, and then I think it would be down to nerves. But then I tend to think better of the world, so maybe thats naive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:52 PM

Quote:
Could be we're good and fsck'd

Quote:

No could be about it, regardless of which party takes control we still have a club of elitist assholes who don't give a damn about the country.

Right again. I don't think this can be said enough
times nor loudly enough. Bush and Kerry are on the
same team along with Hillary and Bill. Anyone who
can't see that is living in la-la land.
My new motto is Vote 3rd Party.
We need a real "man of the people". I'll be good
and Godammned if I ever vote Dem or Repub again.
Any good American should be an "Independent" anyway.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I am not so sure about that STDOUBT. I know a lot of soldiers and they are all aware that they can not follow an unlawful order. I can't see many of them shooting unarmed americans. Unless of course we are talking about unseasoned warriors, and then I think it would be down to nerves. But then I tend to think better of the world, so maybe thats naive.

Few years ago, a buddy of mine had his neighborhood flooded/mudslid. He was in a light pickup with another guy and wanted to go see if/what he could salvage. The National Guard sentry on his street stuck an M16 into the cab and yelled "where do you think you're going?" (IMHO, that's grounds for dishonorable discharge)
I'm glad the soldiers you know are good people, but 50/50 odds, you give a man enough authority over others, and he'll start thinking he's one step down from Jesus.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:02 PM

FREDGIBLET,
Good points -thanks for the bit of perspective.
Just want to make it clear I hope it never comes to that, but I do fear it's either that or utter decay. As in, 10 years from now we're a "3rd-world" slave nation (with half of us happily licking up the crumbs).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I am not so sure about that STDOUBT. I know a lot of soldiers and they are all aware that they can not follow an unlawful order. I can't see many of them shooting unarmed americans. Unless of course we are talking about unseasoned warriors, and then I think it would be down to nerves.

Well the thing is that most of the soldiers (particularly those in a warzone) hear the official line a lot more than the truth. All it would take is saying that the people were terrorists and the soldiers would probably gun them down without question (and I couldn't really blame them, after all they are already sacrficeing themselves for the country). After that the fuse would be lit and all bets would be off.

Quote:
But then I tend to think better of the world, so maybe thats naive.

It is, but it's the good kind of naive, cherish it because those of us who don't believe in the good of the world are very sad people.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
My new motto is Vote 3rd Party.
We need a real "man of the people". I'll be good
and Godammned if I ever vote Dem or Repub again.
Any good American should be an "Independent" anyway.

I would agree with you...but. The problem is that the 2 parties are too firmly entrenched, it would take at least 1\3 of the people voting for a third party to succeed, and that is if they were pulling equally from both sides (which is unlikely). In the end all most people can do is vote for the least offensive of the two and hope they don't get screwed too much, that is what the elitist club counts on to perpetuate itself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
a passle of folk with deer rifles

Actually if I ever get the money I hope to get a Barrett 'Light Fifty', which is no deer rifle (unless the deer have armor plating

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:19 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Amen to that Fred, but...
Who's gonna win: a passle of folk with deer rifles,
or a few Apache attack choppers?

And that my friends, is *WHY* the framers very clearly stated in The Federalist Papers that the intention was that the citizenry outgun any standing army raised.

Read that again, and if you disbelieve me, go read it in the founding fathers own words in Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.

We the people, are intended to, and supposed to, outgun the army, period, end of friggin statement.

Why ?

Because the disparity of force you just mentioned makes a standing army a vessel of tyranny - the second amendment EXISTS to prevent that very thing, only nobody seemed to care until it was too far gone to do much about it.

Quote of the day
"Where do you draw the line, and take up arms ? buddy, if you're asking yourself THAT question, it's already too late."

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Amen to that Fred, but...
Who's gonna win: a passle of folk with deer rifles,
or a few Apache attack choppers?

And that my friends, is *WHY* the framers very clearly stated in The Federalist Papers that the intention was that the citizenry outgun any standing army raised.

Read that again, and if you disbelieve me, go read it in the founding fathers own words in Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.

We the people, are intended to, and supposed to, outgun the army, period, end of friggin statement.

Why ?

Because the disparity of force you just mentioned makes a standing army a vessel of tyranny - the second amendment EXISTS to prevent that very thing, only nobody seemed to care until it was too far gone to do much about it.

Are you arguing that american citizens should be allowed to carry nuclear weapons and operate privately owned aircraft carriers and strike aircraft?

The thing about a disorganised millita is that it's very easilly controlled by those who'd like to do so.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Are you arguing that american citizens should be allowed to carry nuclear weapons and operate privately owned aircraft carriers and strike aircraft?

The thing about a disorganised millita is that it's very easilly controlled by those who'd like to do so.

citizen, please.
Of course he's not arguing that. I think he's just
lamenting the fact that technology has outstripped
the vision of the Founding Fathers. It was inevitable of course, but I can tell you honestly,
as an American, that if the world didn't hate us,
and if our government was indeed Just in it's dealings with other nations, I'd be perfectly content with a low-tech army. Meaning only low-yield conventional weapons under the direct control of a "civil" civilian military.
Also, I disagree that a disorganized (de-centralized?) militia would be easy to control 'cause it's uh... disorganized!
P.S. -you seem cranky lately... what up?

EDIT: and to clarify... Yes, I believe citizens should have access to any weaponry of their army. Meaning: if it's not safe for regular people to have it then the military don't get to have it either!! What a nice world that would be, no?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:40 AM

It's very easy to control a disorganised army because it is disorganised, if someone can sway popular opinion they can control the millitia without gain control of the government. Millitaries often have checks and balances to help prevent that sort of thing, obviously they can be circumnavigated or broken, but a disorganised millitia doesn't have them at all.

Quote:
P.S. -you seem cranky lately... what up?

Nothing, I think it's largely because a lot of my views on recent topics have found me in the minority rather than the majority, plus I've had a few confrontations with people like AURaptor and PirateJew, both of whom are incapable of anything approaching intelligent discourse.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's very easy to control a disorganised army because it is disorganised, if someone can sway popular opinion they can control the millitia without gain control of the government. Millitaries often have checks and balances to help prevent that sort of thing, obviously they can be circumnavigated or broken, but a disorganised millitia doesn't have them at all.

Do I have it right that you're from Mother England? (Not sure where I got that idea but)
Don't worry about any American militia... They really are NOT anywhere near the 'neighborhood threat' they may seem on TV. I'm a vegetarian tree-hugger peacenick and I'd rather hang with militia guys than with real soldiers LOL.
American perception of "the militia" is like,
"Oh, that's dad's crazy unmarried cousin out shooting his rifle with the boys again" -kind of thing. We don't fear them. We look at them funny and wish they could spell.

Quote:
P.S. -you seem cranky lately... what up?

Quote:

Nothing, I think it's largely because a lot of my views on recent topics have found me in the minority rather than the majority, plus I've had a few confrontations with people like AURaptor and PirateJew, both of whom are incapable of anything approaching intelligent discourse.

*passes citizen some grains of salt to take with his future readings*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDoubt:
Do I have it right that you're from Mother England? (Not sure where I got that idea but)

Yes that's right.

Quote:
Don't worry about any American militia... They really are NOT anywhere near the 'neighborhood threat' they may seem on TV. I'm a vegetarian tree-hugger peacenick and I'd rather hang with militia guys than with real soldiers LOL.
American perception of "the militia" is like,
"Oh, that's dad's crazy unmarried cousin out shooting his rifle with the boys again" -kind of thing. We don't fear them. We look at them funny and wish they could spell.

I'd be worried about a crazy man with a rifle. I remember a story some ex squaddies I work with told me. They were operating on a training mission in the states, and got talking to a guy in a bar one night who decided to show them his arsenal.

So they're all there with enough weapons to start world war three pissed up to the eyeballs. One of the squadies makes a joke about the guns being loaded, which it turns out most of them are and ready to fire.

It's the crazies and the drunks that worry me the most.

Quote:
*passes citizen some grains of salt to take with his future readings*

Thanks

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2006 5:00 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
>>Are you arguing that american citizens should be allowed to carry nuclear weapons and operate privately owned aircraft carriers and strike aircraft?

>>citizen, please.
Of course he's not arguing that. I think he's just
lamenting the fact that technology has outstripped
the vision of the Founding Fathers.

Actually, I *AM* arguing that.
Exactly that... ok, well, maybe not exactly... lemme explain.

Any time the army has a bigger club than you do, what is truly to stop them from becoming an arm of tyranny because they outgun you ?
Nothing.

Please don't insult me with the phrase checks and balances - this in the face of a Congress who abdicated their responsibility to declare war to the executive, in the face of signing statements and executive orders used to bypass the checks and balances system, and a stacked supreme court full of rubber stamp yes-men... it's downright insulting to hear someone proclaim that checks and balances work in a system run by folks who believe in a plenary executive theory of goverment.

What it comes down to, is force, and in any case of a disparity of force, those with the stronger generally bully those with the weaker - it's the darker part of our nature.

On the note of stuff like aircraft carriers and nuclear ICBMs... especially NOW, as we have no *significant* opponents that our own actions did not create, what the bloody hell do we need them for ?

Firstly, things like Nuclear Missle subs, Aircraft Carriers, and ICBM's are *offensive* weapons, in the hands of a force that's only Constitutional function is to defend our home turf - don't give me that "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" shovel load either, between the cracked up homeboys with their Tec-9's, the Gun nuts, and the general cussedness of your typical american (no matter how liberal) when his/her own ass is threatened, if you landed an invading force on US soil, it'd be cut to ribbons before they reached the nearest Walmart - can you imagine all the homeboys piling into their war wagons cause they get to shoot people for real and might even get medals for it ?

No one's EVER gonna invade us in conventional military fashion - ain't no one on the planet that damned stupid.

So, tell me again why we need to flush resources down the toilet for long range offensive weapons ? why we need more nukes when we own enough to glass the planet pretty good already ? why we need a standing army at all, in fact ?

Think of how much of our crumbling infrastructure could be repaired for the cost of but one nuclear missle sub ?

If we invested more money into actual DEFENSE spending, instead of wasting it on offensive things we do not, and should not ever, need - we'd have secure borders, less enemies, and less to fear from the ones remaining... hell in a handbasket, one viable fast targeting HERF unit would *FRY* an incoming missles targeting/guidance and detonation circuits, and all you'd have to worry about is the impact zone.

Of all our various military forces, the two closest to our founders ideal are the national guard, and the coast guard, tasked to defend our turf - not go conquer.

No one needs agree with me, but in all honesty, the sensible thing would be to pull out, reduce our forces to what was Constitutionally intended, and dispense with any concept of weapons regulations save in the case of violent criminal history or proven, obvious mental instability - you wanna carry a bazooka down the street, hey, fine by me, great way to keep in shape, lousy way to defend yourself, but it's your life buddy - not for me to tell ya what to do with it.

And it's not like we don't desperately need to fix problems HERE, while what happened at the WTC was a tragedy, more people than that die every year due to lacking, unavailable, or pisspoor health care... but you don't see no one doin much about that, do you ?
(Speakin of which, Hillary can shove it, her last attempt on healthcare sucked, and it's not like she's never taken campaign money from big pharma before either)

And no, I ain't lookin to return to the 'good ole days' of the wild west (which, might I point out, had a substantially LOWER crime rate) either, but a return to at least holding a pretense of Constitutional Principle as best expressed in our current day and age.

I am neither liberal, nor conservative, but a realist who knows problems are never fixed by drawing party lines through them.

Yep, imma one o them independents!

-Frem

PS. Most of these concepts are indeed expressed by one member of congress.
Much as I despise the rest of his party, Ron Paul is a solid dude, and one i'd vote for.
http://www.house.gov/paul/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2006 5:28 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Amen to that Fred, but...
Who's gonna win: a passle of folk with deer rifles,
or a few Apache attack choppers?

They still haven't beat the insurgency in Iraq. Attacking civilians in populated areas would only cause greater unrest, greater unrest fuels the revolution. The biggest problem that would face any revolutionaries here is not the technological and numerical superiority of the Army, but apathy, most people just don't care enough to stand up and fight for themselves.

You hit the nail on the head.

The military is bogged down indefinitely in Iraq & Afghanistan, and now it looks like the majority of the few Guard units left in the states will be sent to the border to help stem the tide of illegal immigration. Even though that leaves little here in the U.S. to protect the home front, don't think for a minute that the feds won't shuffle units, bring home troops in South Korea, Germany and other countries around the world. There is also local law enforcement, federal agencies such as the CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, etc that they could call on to quell any unrest at home if necessary. They have a vast technological superiority over any "revolutionaries" that can not be discounted.

Apathy is the key here though. When our Founding Fathers fought the British there was no apathy on the part of the colonists. They did not have reality tv, video games, movies, etc to dumb down the masses. Most people hardly know what is going on in Washington DC and around the country, so there is little chance they would fight for themselves, let alone a cause. As a people we have grown complacent. The federal government counts on that fact.

Quote:
If our Armed Forces get bought off at the top, then no ammendment is going to help the People turn this around.

I once read an article detailing the number of US soldiers who would kill un-armed American civilians if given the order. Can't remember the percentage, but it was damn unsettling.

Most likely you would have high rates of desertion, martial law, field court martials, drum head trial, and summary executions for treason by firing squad. It is not a pretty picture to consider. Civil war never is.

Quote:
Could be we're good and fsck'd

Quote:
No could be about it, regardless of which party takes control we still have a club of elitist assholes who don't give a damn about the country.

We're definitely screwed. The two big parties suck and they ain't about to allow a third party to give them a run for their money.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:48 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
If our Armed Forces get bought off at the top, then
no ammendment is going to help the People turn this
around.

On the first day of deer season its estimated that more the 6 million hunters hit the woods in Pennsylvania. If they all decided to hop in their pickups and drive to DC, then we could have a new government by sundown.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:49 AM

FLETCH2

Not if they nuke Pennsylvania while the hunters are loading the kegs in the pickup.

The US millitary can slaughter people in their millions if they put their minds to it. The only reason they have trouble in Iraq is that they are trying to avoid killing the innocent. I can think of nothing scarier than the US military gone rogue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I can think of nothing scarier than the US military gone rogue.

How about the U.S. military under the command of a sociopathic retard with delusions of grandeur? *coughbushcough*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:23 PM

And at the same time you have problems like tyranny of the majority.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, I *AM* arguing that.

Cool, you mean if I vote you into office you will let me buy nukes? Fremdfirma for President!!!

Quote:
On the note of stuff like aircraft carriers and nuclear ICBMs... especially NOW, as we have no *significant* opponents that our own actions did not create, what the bloody hell do we need them for ?

Simple, all the countries that are not threats yet. Consider that in the next couple of decades China will probably become a military power to rival us, granted they are not likely to attack because our economies are interdependant (though they depend less on us than we do on them), but better safe than sorry.

Quote:
Firstly, things like Nuclear Missle subs, Aircraft Carriers, and ICBM's are *offensive* weapons

That oddly enough were quite successful at defending the country. Seriously, nuclear detterent works, that's why we haven't invaded North Korea yet...yet.

Quote:
can you imagine all the homeboys piling into their war wagons cause they get to shoot people for real and might even get medals for it ?

Yes

I just hope they wait till I get my .50 cal

Quote:
No one's EVER gonna invade us in conventional military fashion - ain't no one on the planet that damned stupid.

Because of the nukes that would turn their country into a plate of glass. However, if someone develops an effective ABM system...

Quote:
So, tell me again why we need to flush resources down the toilet for long range offensive weapons ?

Because technology marchs on, other countries are not going to stand still and if we don't keep ahead of them they won't be nearly as afraid of us.

Quote:
why we need more nukes when we own enough to glass the planet pretty good already ?

Honestly? We don't know if the old ones will still work. We signed an agreement to not test nukes, and the last thing we need is to find out they don't work too late.

Quote:
why we need a standing army at all, in fact ?

It's nice to talk about a band of pissed off patriots fighting off an invasion, but the reality is that training and equipment make a huge difference. If each of their soldiers has body armor and an assault rifle and is trained in its use, and each of our guys has a .22, 12 guage, or 9mm pistol, I think I know who will win. Most likely if we were invaded and our military lost, it would turn into an Iraq, where they would spend years fighting off insurgents (only we would call then "freedom fighters").

Quote:
Think of how much of our crumbling infrastructure could be repaired for the cost of but one nuclear missle sub ?

More than I care to think about.

Quote:
If we invested more money into actual DEFENSE spending,

Like what? A Maginot line? In this world the best defense is a mobile, highly trained, multi-layered, flexible military, similar to what we have now. Anyone who invades will probably have to fight their way past the Navy, then land under attack from the Air Force and Marines, Then fight across the country under attack from the Army, Air Force, Marines and guerillas. That is the best defense I can think of.

Quote:
No one needs agree with me

Good

Quote:
but in all honesty, the sensible thing would be to pull out, reduce our forces to what was Constitutionally intended, and dispense with any concept of weapons regulations...

Once again, training and equipment. Most people would not buy heavy firepower so if we were invaded they would be unable to even dent a LAV. Additionally most people would not be willing to put the time in to actually master their weapons. If a band of citizens tried to fight an invasion they would be defeated by superior firepower, protection and training.

Quote:
And it's not like we don't desperately need to fix problems HERE, while what happened at the WTC was a tragedy, more people than that die every year due to lacking, unavailable, or pisspoor health care... but you don't see no one doin much about that, do you ?

Nope, the military\industrial complex doesn't profit from helping the poor.

Quote:
And no, I ain't lookin to return to the 'good ole days' of the wild west

Why not?

Quote:
(which, might I point out, had a substantially LOWER crime rate)

Vigilante justice at its best.

Quote:
I am neither liberal, nor conservative, but a realist who knows problems are never fixed by drawing party lines through them.

Blasphemy!!!!!!

I agree with you in principle, I do think that the DoD wastes a great deal of money on projects that are completely unneccesary, but a great deal of them are neccesary as long as we are the superpower. There are a great deal of countries that want to take our place and they will want to go through us to get there.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:13 AM

FREMDFIRMA

These took some digging folks, but it's well worth it.

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
-Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

The word 'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the saber, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms.
-English v State, Texas 473, 476 (1871-2).

That means, yes, the 2nd Amendment means durn well that if you wanna mount a 105mm in your front yard, by all means, be our guest.

Still think our Gov gives a damn about that document?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:28 AM

So you can have a musket, but a 9mm auto loader is right out. That's good to know, only 18th century weapons are constitutionally protected, everything else can be taken away.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So you can have a musket, but a 9mm auto loader is right out. That's good to know, only 18th century weapons are constitutionally protected, everything else can be taken away.

Read the rest, it includes carbines and "holster" pistols. Not exactly sure what a holster pistol is but I'm pretty sure that it could be extended to modern pistols. Also, carbines covers just about any short rifle in use today, so I think we're good.

'Scuse me, I've gotta load that surplus 203mm howitzer I got sitting out front.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:00 PM

It's referring to flint-lock pistols, things that are a little different to modern self-loading 9mms.

A carbine is a smaller less powerful version of rifles or muskets, since muskets have just been mentioned it’s pretty obvious that the carbines mentioned are muskets.

Furthermore those are acceptable weapons for cavalrymen so you need a horse to have a carbine musket or a flintlock pistol, and no since it clearly says cavalry, not mechanised cavalry your car doesn't count.

As I read it your main reason for posting was to prove your interpretation was the more correct, that people were changing the original intent of the text.

Well you’re doing the exact same thing to support your own position, so really you’re just playing favourites with which camp is allowed to interpret the texts.

Oh and since modern artillery includes tactical nuclear shells (and arguably warheads of the missile variety) really if you want to start reinterpreting the literal interpretation of muskets and flintlocks to M16's and Glock 9mm then you have to do the same for artillery pieces.

Otherwise you’re playing favourites with what weapons you want to protect, which means your deciding what is and what is not protected, not letting the constitution do it.

And if you really think letting individuals own Nuclear weapons is a good idea...

EDIT: Sorry just noticed it wasn't originally your post. It's all your fault for having screen names that start with the same letter, obviously.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:25 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

On a new tack, the military doesn't have to go rogue. All that needs to happen is the government controls the news, spies on its citizens, abrogates constitutional protections, and rigs elections. And there goes democracy with nary a weapon.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 5:10 PM

REAVERMAN

Rue,
Actually, it would take a president who uses a national disaster (hurricane/war/terrorist attack) of some sort to convince congress to give him/her (okay, who am I kidding. HIM) emergency powers through a ridiculously vaguely worded act (probably given a good name like PRIDE, or FREEDOM, or PATRIOT), and voila! Democracy is gone.

But, of course, that is a laughably unlikely scenario.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:13 AM

And of course the people wouldn't stand for it. Wouldn't make excuse about exceptional circumstances and "they're only going after the bad guys".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
A carbine is a smaller less powerful version of rifles or muskets, since muskets have just been mentioned it’s pretty obvious that the carbines mentioned are muskets.

But by a literal interpretation anything that goes by the name carbine would be acceptable even if it did not match the original meaning. Therefore the modern day carbines should fall under the law.

Quote:
Oh and since modern artillery includes tactical nuclear shells (and arguably warheads of the missile variety) really if you want to start reinterpreting the literal interpretation of muskets and flintlocks to M16's and Glock 9mm then you have to do the same for artillery pieces...And if you really think letting individuals own Nuclear weapons is a good idea...

Why wouldn't it be?

Quote:
EDIT: Sorry just noticed it wasn't originally your post. It's all your fault for having screen names that start with the same letter, obviously.

Actually fremdfirma and I have been planning this for years just to confuse you MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:18 PM