The Constitution says nothing about felons (the word denotes justly convicted as all in USA are innocent until convicted.) or stupidity.

Anyone who allows a predator a firearm is either naive, stupid, or twisted, IMHO.

My experience with felons is that they are not trustworthy, or rather you can trust them to identify with other felons over non-felons, and lean sociopathic.

But that is merely my humble opinion based on a dozen or so acquaintances of different lengths and nature. You are welcome to your opposing views based on your experience.

What is an arm:

I believe it is any Small Arms (Guns) or Heavy Arms (Crew-Served Weapons). This doesn't include Destructive Devices outside the definition of Heavy Arms. A bomb isn't protected, because it isn't an arm. A Ma Duece is a Crew-Served Machine Gun and is therefore an Arm. Where you mount your arms doesn't matter. If you put an MG on a tank that is OK, if you have a canon it that is a crew-served heavy arm.

We can agree that Weapons of Mass Destruction can be banned as non-arms. But, we need to realize a wepaon designed for indiscriminate killing isn't an arm. A Mine (other than Claymores), a Long-Range Missle designed to destroy a target area rather than a target.

Any weapon that can be used to engage a single or multiple enemy personnel, or any weapon that can be used to engage a single or multiple enemy vehicles or dwellings.

Simply put, if you can aim it at a person, vehicle, or building and destroy or kill only that person, vehicle, or building then it is legal and an arm. If you can't aim it it isn't an arm. If it will destroy everything in the area, it isn't legal. This would limit Grenades. You can determine where a Grenade will go, but a Grenade that throws shrapnel can be reasonably expect to kill bystanders and therfore isn't legal. A mine will kill anybody who steps on it, and is therefore unaimed as in indiscriminate. The same can be said for all booby traps. A Bazooka can be aimed and its destruction contained to a single target or targets. If you Bazooka a tank, you destroy the tank, not every tank in the area. But, if you drop a bomb you will destroy anything within range. A mortar can be aimed and used against a single target or targets and is therefore legal.


SO, that said on to the Felon issue. It was originally believed Felons would be put to death. If you robbed a bank you were hanged, if you shot somebody rather or not they died you were hanged. If you were a dasnger to societ you were hanged. SO, in my opinion these people should not be out on the street. If the government decides to release them early, then for the remainder of their sentence (initial sentence) they are on Virtual-Probation. In fact, probation/parole should be use rather than early release. Because, a person on parole hasn't payed their debt. A person unconditionally released is believed to have paid their debt. It was customary that a gunshop owner wouldn't sell to anyone he knew was a criminal or believed was going to use the gun for crime. So, Cpaone and other gangsters used other persons to buy guns for them. Because, nobody would sell a gun to a gangster. In fact, Cpaone could have legally bought any gun he wanted. He owned several Machine Guns. Clyde Barrow invented the Whip-It Sawed-Off Shotgun. Bonnie and Clyde as well as the Police carried Fully-Automatic B.A.R.s which at that time were Anti-Tank/Armor Guns. In fact, throughout history the public has been better armed than the Military and Police. While the Military didn't abandon the Musket until the end of the 19th Century, Civilians were using Repeating Arms (Sharps, Spencer, Henry, Winchester) as early as the 1850's. Repeating Rifles became prevelant in Civilian use in the Late 1860's/1870's, but weren't fully adopted by the military until the 1880's/1890's. WHile the U.S. Military didn't adopt a Submachine Gun until the WWII era, civilians had them as early as the end of WWI (1918). Police had SMGs (Tommy Guns) in the late 20's/early 30's. Civilians owned AR-15s (The original name for the M-16) in the early 1950's. The M-16 wasn't adopted by the U.S. Military until the late 1960's.

I do not read any limits that are set in the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is designed to allow you to possess the means for self defense, to protect your family, property, and to overthrow and destroy a tyrannical government.

An arm is the device used to keep your hand attached to your shoulder.

It is just amazing how people will try to define everything that someone else should have restricted from them.

The ARMS race was directly referring to Nuclear weapons. Notice the word arms. The same people who use this word here now try to make it mean something else.

Why the limitations of bombs, explosives, missiles, etc. Is it because they’re evil? Is it because certain people won’t use them correctly? If we use these as examples for exemption, than we may as well restrict all weapons, cars, silverware, pockets knives, sharp pencils, and elongated fruits and vegetables.

The thing that makes any device dangerous is the human operating it. Why not deal with the problem, not the device?

I don't know.  It is not just your average "gang banger".

Just pointing out possibilities from NO RESTRICTION WHATSOEVER.

re: meaning of the Second Amendment -

I gotta go with: NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER.

Two reasons-

1. For self-defense from criminals, who have absolutely NO RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER on what they can buy, including nuclear weapons, the only limiting factor being their bank account.

2. As part of the unorganized militia, I may be the ONLY guy in my unorganized unit, who can afford the crew served weapon my unorganized company will need to effectively wage war as part of an unorganized division. And what idiot places restrictions on what THEIR OWN soldiers can use to fight a war????

re: the mentally insane and former felons -

If the allmighty, all knowing, all powerful gov't  is in charge of determining that a nut or ex-con is allowed to be in society, they have ALREADY determined said nut or ex-con has no restrictions on them, cuz criminals don't follow laws. Laws ONLY affect the law abiding. Thus, the ONLY person who follows the Constitution is the law-abiding - and they are not the problem anyway.

ANYONE who thinks a law will stop a criminal from committing a crime is an idiot. Hence, your laws don't  do anything other than turn the law abiding (namely, me) into felons.

[b]OF COURSE THERE ARE SOME RESTRICTIONS[/b]


I cant find the friggin' quote right now, but one of the founding fathers said that weapons that serve a militia purpose were anything current of the times and could be carried by an individual person.

this would rule out tanks, jets, gunships, gunboats, crew mounted weapons, nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, and portable missle launchers.

the only area of controversy would be hand grenades, LAW's, C-4, and Stinger missles as they could be carried by individual soldiers. in use at this time.

i shall find this quote and post it as soon as possible.

unreasonable lib

Well said.  The felon who cannot be trusted with a firearm cannot be trusted to abide by laws which restrict their ownership of a firearm.  The repeating felon shows his contempt for people (by his actions against them), the laws (by repeatedly breaking them), and the lenient punishment we bestow upon them (by their willingness to serve repeated sentences).

It is amazing that they "can't be trusted", yet we put them on the streets.  I think the lenient nature of the system, with it's propensity to return criminals to the streets where law-abiding citizens cannot arm themselves, is just another way that lawyer-legislators keep their cousins, the practicing attorney's, in business.  It certainly does not serve justice or protect the citizens.

At minimum, the second amendment should guarantee that any adult who is not in prison or otherwise institutionalized should be afforded the right to possess and carry anything found in any police department.  A more reasonable interpretation would be that the state should supply all willing members of the unorganized militia with the same weapons and mandatory training given the military.  This would include all the weapons and gear used by the military.

I could see the state being in control of anything a soldier can't carry (i.e. tanks, aircraft, etc.).  Re-read the Federal and state law codes and you'll see that they are responsible to arm and train us (that's my understanding of what's written).  The governors of most of our states are in dereliction of duty, and nobody blinks.

Why have an unorganized militia recognized in the laws if the government doesn't need to maintain it?

Richardson

I am finding that many of the limits that you guys are putting on the 2nd Amendment are ridiculous.  Since when did "bear arms" mean "only what you can carry, and not if it explodes".  

1.  The technology has changed, but the functions have pretty much stayed the same.  In the Revolutionary war, horses were used.  These were fast vehicles which possessed strength and the ability to frighten grounded troops.  The horse would be today's equivalent of a Humvee, helicopter, or other lightly armored vehicle.  Cannons were also used.  Their function was to throw as much firepower out as they could.  They were mobile and crew served.  They might be the primitive tank, mortar, and artillery batteries.  It seems that implements of war have changed, but their function has not.

2.  The meaning of the phrase "bear arms" does not limit one to what he can carry.  That is a simple-minded and erroneous modern assertion.  You may have heard the phrase "brought to bear", which means what you can procur.  The 1700's word "bear" simply means "to procure".  One could rewrite the 2nd Amendment to read: The rights of the citizenry to own and procur arms shall not be...

3.  The phrase "well-regulated" is another phrase that lends itself to bad modern interpretation.  The word "regulated" at the time meant "Outfitted".  This is a far cry from modern interpretations where regulated means that the govt. makes laws.  A well outfitted militia would own the best ordinance they could afford, and have the best training and preparedness.  

These three points show that any modern military/offensive/defensive weapon would have it's place in a militia members posession.  The militia is intended to be damn-rightfully armed, trained, and ready.  If it is not, then the militia has no purpose.

No restrictions is the intention of the founders.  There may have been a few that disagreed, but this was all decided when the Bill of Rights was worded, and ratified.

Great, so you've eliminated the arbitrary number of people who can carry the "arm".  Now how are you going to control how strong that single person can be?  I know a militia aged man who can barely lift my HBAR AR15, and I'm sure there are men out there that [i]can[/i] lift some heavier crew served weapons that would otherwise be restricted.

I don't know the answer here either.  I just would like all arbitrary choices eliminated from the discussion.

IMHO,
The founding father's meant no limits. The second amendment was put in place so that the people would be able to fight the goverment, and in turn keep the goverment in check. I do belive whenever we either get poloticians to see our way, the next revolution, or the constitution of the Confedrated Martian Provences, it should be stated that the only limites would be against the civilian ownership of nuclear, biological, or chemical munitions. I think the problem with felon's getting auto's or what have you in that kind of culture is moot because everyone else will be able to posses equaly effective weapons, that alone will detere crime.

[rail]

Well, it used to be the case that only landowners were eligible to vote.  This was a reasonable restriction IMHO.  Non-landowners have now voted themselves power to strictly regulate landowners, and now the concept of private property is endangered in many areas.

We deny convicted felons their rights because of what they did to others, not because we feel like it.  That being said, if murderers, rapists, and [insert heinous criminal here] were put to death, and other major violent felons were locked away for life, this would all be a moot point.
I am not in favor of denying 2nd Amendment rights for petty crime, minor felonies, white collar type crime, or drug use convictions.

No restrictions.

Re: Landowners only may vote...
If you want to be strictly accurate, it was only landowning, white males over the age of 21 who were permitted to vote.  I'd venture that most of you who would be in favor of a return to something like that already meet the above description.  I am a land-owner, my principles were the same when I was not a landowner.  
The very idea that the franchise should be restricted to property owners in a modern urbanized, mobile society is laughable.  Why don't we just cut to the chase and limit the franchise to the wealthy?  And while we're at it, since only property owners would have the right to vote, we might as well limit all other rights to them as well.  Pretty quickly, we can construct the type of stratified society most of you guys usually rail against.

Post from Garand Shooter -

Damn straight I would!  What part of 'Hell, Yeah!' do you not understand?[:D]

They've [u]already[/u] forfeited their rights by virtue of their criminal activity.

If I am going to determine whether or not they should regain their right to vote, [u][b]I[/b][/u] would be almost criminally negligent if I did not consider the possibility that there would become a 'criminal' special interest group in the heart of the DemocRat Party. A special interest group whose main purpose might be in softening the nation's response to crime and to frustrate the law-abiding on issues that pertain to crime and punishment. Aren't the DEMOS notoriously soft enough on crime, anyway?

So YOU wouldn't consider that at all??? I guess not, since you probably favor an 'illegal or undocumented immigrant' special interest group, as well!

Eric The(OhIKnow,ElectoralReform[u]After[/u]TheFloodgatesAreOpened!)Hun[>]:)]

I am not saying only White, Rich, landowners should be able to vote.  Any landowner should vote.  What we have happening is that people who do not share our values are voting themselves our money.  Landowners were also the only ones to be taxed at the time.  What I am saying is that only taxpayers should be allowed to vote.  Sounds fair to me.

Now, your class arguement is just flat wrong.  Landowners, or taxpayers are not necessairly wealthy.  Just ask my wife.  

The right to vote should not be included as a civil right.  The bill of rights applies to all, but voting is not found here.  You are confusing human rights with legal rights.  A 13 year old does not have the right to drive a car in D.C.  But most of us do.  Let's make it mandatory to vote when you turn 6.  Now we can have a perfect society.  

Why would you want non-taxpayers voting?  They are hiring someone to steal money for them.  This sounds like legalized robbery.

this really IS a simple question people.

The founders INTENT was to create a militia capable of FIGHTING AGAINST the standing army of a repressive home gov't.

What kind of idiot would place restrictions on the arms said militia would have access to, KNOWING that the standing army would have unlimited access to ALL arms?

Again I ask, what kind of idiot LIMITS the tools a soldier can fight with?????

Torf -


this is CLASSIC Gologo-13 tactics. Attempt to win the argument by painting you into a corner by distorting what you are saying, and claiming you are saying something clearly reprehensible, which you NEVER even came close to saying.

The next step would be to damn the Founding Father to hell and rip up the Constitution becuase they also owned slaves. The fact that sufferrage was incorrectly limited to lanmdowning white males only is BY NO MEANS a justifiable argument against ONLY landowners being able to vote. No more than the MISUSE of guns is a legitimate reason to outlaw them.

I'm with ya baby. ONLY landoners of ALL races, ages, religious beliefs and sexual orientations can vote.

Its is simply stupid to allow transient people to determine the long term policy of a community for two reasons - (1) typically, they pay the LEAST amount of the cost of the programs they vote for, and (2) they are GONE long before the bill comes in or the "chips" of the stupid legislation they voted for fall.

He and I already did this discussion once before. He pulled the same stunt on me.

Its OK tho - I still luv him. He's my brother in arms. [BD]

Thanks for the advice.  He reminded me of Seminar callers that try to get on Rush Limbaugh's program.  His tactics sounded funny, but I didn't catch on until it was too late.

If you two are finished patting eachother on the fanny, Garandman and Torf, please take a moment to demonstrate where I distorted anything you said.  The FACT of the matter is that when voting was restricted to landowners, that meant white, landowning males over the age of 21.
Since you felt a need to comment on my "tactics", Garandman, I'll give you (and Torf) the exact advice Muad Dib gave you on a thread recently; learn to communicate exactly what you mean.  Your perception of my "tactics" stems largely from your expectation that the reader will somehow read between the lines and understand what you meant rather than what you said.  In a medium such as this, devoid of facial expression and tonal variation, precision in expression is key.  I build my responses on what you put on the screen, not what you had in your heart.  Since at least one of you is a Limbaugh fan, I'll remind you of one of his favorite sayings: "Words have meaning."
To expand a bit on the point of my original post, you never mentioned anything about landowners being the only ones taxed, only that the franchise should be restricted to them. Don't have to be wealthy to own land?  Check the prices of real estate in NYC.  The reality of modern society is that it is urban and urban real estate is expensive.  Perhaps you need to explain what the term "landowner" means to you.  How much land?  If I divide up one acre of my place into 6,560,640 plots of 1 square inch each, and deed them to 6,560,640 renters, I apparently have single-handedly created a powerful voting block.  The taxes on such a small property shouldn't be unduly burdensome to most people, even if we do follow through on taxing only landowners.
I luv you, too, Garandman; but let's not get all sloppy and sentimental about it. I might start to cry.

Hardly. In fact, YOU not only unnecessarily read between the lines, you added thoughts that were never even implied..

Torf said "Only landowners should vote." He never said anything about race, or gender. You INSERTED those thoughts into his comments, when he in NO WAY even IMPLIED such a position. That is a distortion of his position.

From there, you went on to twist that into claiming he was in favor of "construct[ing] the type of stratified society most of you guys usually rail against. " A simply absurd statement by you.

To analogize, when only landowners could vote, there were also "additional restrictions" that they also be white and male. You INSERTING those additional restrictions into his thoughts is as logically fallacious as you saying he also advocates the wearing of knickers and powdered wigs, as they also were common place during the time of only landowners being able to vote.

My thoughts, and his, were QUITE CLEAR. My observation is ONLY that people of a more leftist persuasion misinterpret them. I suspect intentioanlly so, for, as I stated earlier, the purpose of villifying my arguments by painting them as something they clearly are not.

I find that people who agree with me most ALWAYS understand exactly what I am saying. And those that disagree with me don't. And they twist my words into political pretzels. THIS is what I find to be your "tactic."

Like I said, we've been here before. Feel free to respond to this, but you'll get the last word, as nothing will be gained by further beating this dead and decaying horse.

If you realize for a moment that most Americans don't live in NYC, you just might be able to understand that owning land is not for the rich.  Throughout most of the country, an acre of land can be had for less than $10,000.  Granted, some of it is in indivisible farm plots, but those go for $2,000 an acre.  Even suburb dwellers can get a 1/2 acre for $30,000 or less.  This is not chump change, but when combined with appreciation, and a 30-year mortgage, land is in many cases, a bargain.  

A person would be foolish to go through life thinking that only the rich could own land, but at the same time drop $1500 a month on rent in a big city.  They could have land and a big house in a not so shabby area for that kind of money.

Modern society is NOT urban.  I hear this kind of rhetoric from radical liberals who think that LA, NYC, and Chicago are the only places for thinking, intelligent people to reside.  Fly-over country is for the hicks, they say.  Well whoop-de-doo.  I don't think I have to proceed further down that road.  Most people know what I am talking about.

If you think NYC is typical of America, you are nuts.  The blue areas of the county by county election 2000 map are inhabited by people who want total restriction on firearm ownership.  If you are here, I think you don't fit that mold too well given your previous vote for "No Restrictions".

And another thing...

Don't use Rush's quote, "Words have meaning", and at the same time spewing class warfare rhetoric and an anti-achiever attitude.  Rush does not endorse those views.

"Words have meanings", so think about the meaning of the words "Landowner" and "Rich" before you go off an try to smear those who understand their real meanings.

Torf,
Please be so good as to point out the class-warfare rhetoric and anti-achiever attitude in my posts to this or any other thread.  Like many of Limbaugh's dittoheads you are good at throwing around his catchphrases, let's see if you can analyze as well as he can.  Since you claim to "really" know what those terms mean, please enlighten me.  I await your answer.

p.s. You are doing an excellent job playing Chester to my favorite moderator's Spike.

If there are to be no restrictions then how would you justify the private ownership of chemical weapons and nuclear missles?

a persons individual strengh has now bearing on the firearm that they could legally own. only the type of weapon at use of the time. i spent an hour looking for the damn quote, but the only way i'll seem to be able to find it is to comb through my stuff at home. it may have been George Mason. i should try www.hk91.com again, but there down right now it seems.

imagine the KKK have Apache gunships with tanks and nerve gas.

imagine the Black panthers with APC's and Stinger missles.

one lone person could potentially wipe out a city with a nuclear bomb for the glory of either his God or to satisfy their angered vengence against society that called them names and lowered the precious self-esteem.

personally i would like to own a jet fighter or a couple of stinger missles, but allowing no restrictions whatsoever would lead to chaos thanks to all the extremists and zealots out there.

just thinking lib

No offense, but you are NOT thinking, here.

Especially as a libertarian, you should understand that you don't construct your laws around the actions of people WHO DON"T OBEY LAWS.

You construct your laws in such a fashion that the law abiding are NOT  at a disadvantage when facing the criminals.

And like I said before -

The FF's intent was to create a militia capable of deterring a blaoted fed gov't from running rough shod over the citizens. What kind of idiot would hamstring a militia to NOT be able to own arms similar to those of those who they will be fighting against.

Its stupid to tie one hand behind you back.

Yes, garandman, but that theoretical point has to be balanced against real world problems like fire and theft..

Would you rather the fire marshal keep coming around to see if you have a safe for you ATGW, and a bunker with sprinklers for your 155mm cartridges?  Do you think you neighbors are going to tolrate the presence of large quantities of flamable or explosive materials without ensurance of safe storage?

Would it make you feel any better that it was the local milita that came and took your ammo away because you arnet storing it properly? And not the ATF?  What I am telling you are things the US Army and the various National Guards have to deal with every day. Prevent the loss of munitions from fire, theft, flood. These are every day hastles to them, are you saying you are up to dealing with them also?

What you seem to think is that greater intelligence (i.e., smarts) is by defintion to be found in gov't personnel.  My experience is that the opposite is true.

Thus far, my "arsenal" has been protected JUST fine, thank you. The gov't can't even keep sufficient 9mm on hand to train its soldiers.

On the contrary my dear Garandman [:D] the points i made are sound and intended to invoke thought. i agree with your statement above. however legalizing chemical weapons such a nerve gas have no use as a freedom fighting weapon, nor does a nuclear missle or bomb. damages to non-combatants with such weapons would be catastrophically high.

if i could i would legalize light anti-tank weapons and Stinger weapons. grenades (omni-directional explosive shotgun blast) dont matter much,since pipebomb are somewhat close depending on how they are made. claymore mines (multiple steel shot shotgun blasts fired at once) would also make the list.

such a topic is not so simple as stating that there should be no restriction. others on this thread have already stated that chemical weapons are bad and should be restricted. how could one defend a nuclear bomb?

also is should be added that tanks, jets, gunships are not really weapons onto themselves but vehicles that carry weapons or weapons with vehicles designed around them.

any thoughts?

Here is my chance to chime in with my .00002 cents.


A citizen who has not commited or currently indicted for a felony can own anything they want.

Garandman you are being stupid. Someone posts a real world problem that gets in the way of your fantasy and you throw back some stupid retort rather than dealing with the problem.

The stuff you want to be leagal cannot be stored in the rough and ready manner that metallic cartridge small arms ammo can. Missiles, rockets, artillery ammo catches fire much more readily and can explode, doing damage to entire blocks. The US military spends millions building safe storage sites for them, so they dont catch fire and explode(or if they do its contained and threatens as few lives as possible), dont get stolen, dont get wet, and are therefore in good conditon, ready to be used and not wasted.

Now, do you think people can, out of their own pockets, duplicate this?  Because if someone has a accident with heavy ordinance the consequences are not going to be kept to his property.  He is going to have to deal with the real possiblity of burning down or blowing down his neigbors houses, and of killing or injuring firefighters.  That is reality.  How do you propose to deal with it?  

By using that same logic we could also eliminate private possession of all firearms.

To endorse that kind of thinking, would be saying that the owner of a rifle or hand guns has no obligation to safe guard them.
In fact the owner of a large collection has a greater burden to safe guard just because of the sheer volume. That has nothing to do with the right to own.

So then you beleve that money will be the security?  That people will simply not be able to afford to assemble these munitions in amouts that would be dangerous?

Post from ArmdLbrl -

That may well be, but the point is that the gubmint still thinks it unwise for the private citizen to have such weapons, [u]EVEN[/u] if it could be shown that any such individual citizen was fully capable, in fact, of handling the ordnance or munitions [u]just as safely and effectively [/u] as the various National Guard troops.  

In other words, the citizen is absolutely banned
from the use or possession of such weapons, and no exceptions are permitted.  If the weapons are truly that frightful, then maybe such weapons should not be stored [u]anywhere[/u] in the United States, and thus be [u]just[/u] as unobtainable for LEOs and standing military for use or possession in this country, as they are for ordinary (or even extraordinary) private citizens.

If that were the case, I'm certain that David Koresh would most likely be alive and serving time in some prison down here in Texas, and all of his kids would be safe and sound in the arms of their various mothers this evening!

The other folks who died at Mt. Carmel on either February 28, or April 19, 1993, would be alive as well.

As would Timothy McVeigh and about 168 other individual citizens!

But because the FBI Hostage Rescue Team had members of the National Guard driving AFVs and MCVs around Mt. Carmel Church grounds, and had M-4s, grenade launchers, and other military whatever, for their offensive use, there was little [u]reason[/u] for them NOT to use aggressive tactics against the Davidians. And there was certainly no [u]desire[/u] on their part to refrain from using such weapons, as they desired.

If they had been issued flamethrowers, there is little, if any, doubt that those weapons would have been employed in the final assault.

So apply for a license, check your local zoning and ordinances, and get some pretty heavy insurance coverage, just in case that a 'short round' might hit some neighbor. See if removing all the stated objections would permit you to own that 155mm howitzer, you always wanted.

Eric The(IfLEOsAndStandingArmyNeedMachineGuns,WeNeedMachineGuns!)Hun[>]:)]

Eric, that is neither here nor there on this thread.

This thread is based on a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, what the gun laws in this country SHOULD BE not how they ARE today.

You think because the ATF doesnt safely secure its weapons or learn how to use them that its a excuese for everyone to do the same?

How about this: The equivelant of anything we could own in 1933. How about the same classes of weapons owned in 1776. Those would be:

Small Arms
Crew Served Guns
Artillery Pieces (Canons/Mortars)
Short Range Rockets

And yes, Tanks, APCs, Gunships, Gunboats, etc. are just Vehicles with Guns on 'em. They are regulated because you do not have a right to drive. You could have a gun onboard or mounted as long as the vehicle met the requirements to be street legal, such as 2 Headlights, lisence plate, etc. A tank probably couldn't be alowed on the street. But, owning it and having it on Private Property would be legal. You could mount any small arm, crew-served weapon or canon that can be operated by a single-person. An M2 on a tripod can be operated by 1 person. A canon on wheels can be operated by one person. You have the individual right to own any weapon you can operate that won't cause bystanders to die. Do you believe that in 1933 the gov. would have allowed us to own 1 Ton Military Bombs. Restrictions can be placed on storage as in where. As in, zoning laws could prohibit the storage of high explosives and explosive munitions. Basically, if it will kill you neighbors when it goes off in your house then it should be illegal, except small arms and other projectile based non-explosive munitions. If I store bombs in an urban area, what is the possibility of neighbors being killed by an explosion. If I live in the country, then that possibility is reduced, except with Atomic Bombs, Chemical Weapons (Non-Disipatting), and Biological Weapons. Theoretically, a small amount of Poison Gas that would thouroughly dissipate before reaching a neighbor would be legal.

M11 you make some very good points.
As you have and will see though it will fall on some very deaf ears here.
Some very thick heads.
Some very,very just plain stupid unintelligent individuals.
It's a real shame how vacant some people are!

Think about what you just said here....repeat it a few times out loud, especially the last part.

Chemical weapons are "bad?"

Is that to be interpreted as "an inanimate object, capable of commiting evil?"

Surely you don't believe chemical weapons can commit evil acts, outside of evil people who use them??

No, ONLY "people" are "bad." NOT chemical weapons.

The antis use a similar logic - full auto weapons are "bad." Please.

The free ownership of chemical weapons follows the same logic as nuclear weapons. [b]PEace thru strength. [/b] If the enemy KNOWS you have chemical weapons, they are LESS likely to use them than if they know you DON'T have them.

Further, any law preventing citizen ownership of chemical weapons will NOT be effective in keeping criminals from owning them, BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY LAWS. The ONLY thing such a law will co is to put the law abiding citizenry at a disadvantage to the law breakers. I remember just a few years ago a case in Chicago I believe where Joe Average had enuf Anthrax (or some similar germ) to wipe out the entire city of CHicago. Laws prohibiting ownership did NOTHING to stop him. They simply raised the price, encouraging said individual to enagage in MORE illegal activity to be able to fund his illegal purhcase. The law of unintended consequences.


For ALL these reasons, it only makes sense for the unorganized militia to have access to these weapons. The unorganized militiais YOU and ME.

Honestly, you are "thinking" emotionally. You don't seem to have gotten past the "Oh my god!!!!!!!!!!! stage of rational thinking when it comes to chemical weapons.

No offense.

All right Golgo-13 here we go:


This is a technicality.  I am not in favor of those restrictions, and never said that I was.  I am in favor of ANY landowner being able to vote.

Here you are trying to show that since I might have been eligible to vote under this system, I must have been a racist bastard who wanted to kick black folks to the curb.  This is completely ridiculous.  I don't care who the person is, but if they own land they will have in interest in checking the power of government.

That may be true for you, but it is not true for everyone.  Some poor guy will rail and deride the rich all day, until he wins the lottery.  All of a sudden he is rich, has to pay major taxes, gets hit up for donations, ect.  Most of those people realize that the rich are just as screwed by the government as the poor, just in different ways.

The very idea that firearm ownership should be allowed by the masses in a modern urbanized, mobile society is laughable.  Just because somthing has been around for 200 years doesn't make it "laughable".  Contrary to popular opinion, the times haven't really changed.

Here you are insinuating that only rich people can own land, and poor folks couldn't afford it.  Not only that, but you seem to be implying that rich folks like the fact that others are poor.  This is class warfare at it's height.  I already showed you that landownership is available to any who wants it, and is willing to earn it.

As I have said before, the Bill of Rights applies to everyone.  All have equal protection under the law.  The rest of the rights only deal with certain people at certain times.  The right to be President is limited to a natural born citizen, age 35 and up.  The right to vote only applies to citizens ages 18 and up.  Don't confuse legal rights with civil rights.  The right to vote is not technically a civil right.  The freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is a civil right.  I'm sure we will argue this later.

Spoken in true Jesse Jackson/Tom Daschle/Al Gore style.  This is populist rhetoric that plays to class and racial tensions.  Of course, nobody wants apartheid, but you are implying that being selective with the right to vote will take us back to slavery.

For the record, I have never spoken out about the fact that some are rich and some are poor.  I have spoken out about creating a dependancy class for poor folks who find that it is easier to sponge off taxpayers than to work to improve their lives.

I demand equality of opportunity, not outcome.

This is why it is a travesty that welfare queens are allowed to vote for more welfare programs.  You get my drift?

Shall we discuss why NYC'ers should be allowed to tell Utah farmer Johnson what he can do with his land?

I don't think that either of these 2 words were in the 2nd amendment.  Morters and Cannons are clearly ARMS.

As to the chemical weapon thing.  Treaties are signed with the stroke of a pen.  No treaty can deny us arms can it?  Real liberty is won through spilled blood.
This is not to say that I think chemical weapons are great.  I just don't think we can use some treaty to justify denying certain weapons.  That is a long road to utter firearms prohibition.

Torf -

You are right on ALL counts with Golgo. Especially the "class struggle" aspect of his posts.

But like I said, you are wasting your breath.

Note where he said...."The very idea that the franchise should be restricted to property owners in a modern urbanized, mobile society is laughable."

In my experience, this typically means "we are more intelligent than those pre-historic Founding Fathers. We are more sophisticated than they." Its the typical arrogance bred into the "educated" by the public schools and Leftist universities. Simply dismiss anything disagreeable as "laughable" ESPECIALLY if it is not a concept developed in the last 30 years or so. This ploy is frequently used in rejecting anything Biblical, but equally suitable to conservative ideals as expressed by the FF.

Torf,

That is a pretty large technicality.  You still have yet to define what you consider a landowner to be.


My point is that if you were not a landowner, the chance that you would be in favor of limiting the franchise to the same is probably pretty slim.  To illustrate my point, if we decided to limit the franchise only to Marine Corps veterans who also have PhD's in quantum physics and you didn't have those qualifications, would you be in favor of it?  What I am saying, quite simply, is that since you own land you see it as emminently fair and right that only landowners should vote.

I never said the wealthy did not have problems of their own.  I merely do not see them as peculiarly suited to rule by sole virtue of being wealthy.  Europe was ruled by the wealthy nobility throughout most of its history.  Neither birth nor wealth qualify a person to rule, in my estimation.  Study the life of Henry Ford, and you will see that building a major corporation and accumulating vast wealth does not indicate that a person is in any other way a wise man.

They haven't?  I guess the abolition of slavery, extension of the franchise to women, the industrial revolution, the transformation from a largely rural agrarian population to an urban worker population, and the changes in ethnic make-up of the US have all been figments of my imagination.  Once again, define "landowner."  Does the guy who bought his apartment in a condo building count?  How about the guy who owns part of a time-share?  There are a great many people who earn large salaries (and pay large taxes on them, I might add)who rent their apartments.  Why does this make them unqualified to vote?


If land ownership becomes the key to political empowerment, then the wealthy have a leg up on being part of the political process from the start. In many cases, they will own property through inheritence.  While passing on property to one's heirs is good and right, it doesn't make those heirs more entitled to vote than the son of the poor man down the road, IMO.  The rich kid gets to vote right away by virtue of inheritence, the poor kid has to wait until he "earns" the right?  No thanks, sounds too much like hereditary nobility to me.  Additionally, this scheme makes it easier to become franchised if you have the luck to live in area with low real estate values as opposed to an area where such values are high.  

Don't think of it that way.

think of it as since landowners pay the MAJORITY of the bills for gov't programs that are voted in, and since landowners are the ones who have to live with the stupid legislation, LONG after the "highly mobile urban" people are GONE, that ONLY landowners should be able to vote.

COntrary to your fears, restricting the vote to landowners only will NOT return us to the  feudal, fief system of the Middle ages.

garandman,

with due respect, it seems that you're the one who is "thinking" emotionally, with the "Oh my god!!!!! stage of rational thinking"....

Yes, chemical weapons are bad.  Once produced, they are inaminate objects, capable of causing SEVERE AND WIDESPREAD SUFFERING AND DEATH OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, without the aid of a human being.  Earthquakes, tornado's, floods, fires could easily unleash the "badness" of these weapons upon great numbers in any part of the world.  Let's just consider smallpox.  Is there a justification for you to have an abundant supply of smallpox in your personal possession?

As one suspicious of the government, you'd be "wise" to cache it in several locations.  I sure hope you don't get into a severe traffic accident.  If you do, then God help the poor construction worker who's working on that new housing development when his bulldozer unearths... oh, and God help the rest of the construction crew, and the families up the street, and all the others who contract it through those directly exposed to your cache...  Or did you detail the location of these cached biological weapons in your will?  Dang-it, you're in a coma and your will wasn't read.  Hey, maybe some of that smallpox will relieve you from your coma, permanently!

Small arms can be used defensively.  How do you unleash smallpox "defensively"?  Or would you shoot at an attacker if he were surrounded by innocent bystanders?  You're thinking about chemical weapons may work on the international level, but not when it makes you a defacto terrorist, killing as many (or more) civilians as military personnel.

Richardson