Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/9/2001 1:28:34 PM EDT
Gee, isn't this what I have said all along and even been chastised HERE for pointing out? Right to Bear (Some) Arms The “civilized-warfare” test excludes firearms that many persons want to be included. By Dave Kopel [url]www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel060701.shtml[/url] [EXCERPT] "Attorney Stephen Halbrook, suggests that, "artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices and other heavy ordinances are not constitutionally protected" arms, nor are "grenades, bombs, bazookas and other devices … which have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." (Steven Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment, 49 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. at 153 (1986).) But the Halbrook test sidesteps the fact that militia uses, not just personal-defense uses, are part of the core of the Second Amendment. Moreover, the Halbrook test could allow governments to ban new types of guns or weapons, since those weapons, being new, "have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." The test could allow Second Amendment technology to be frozen, as if the government claimed that new communications devices are unprotected by the First Amendment because they have never (heretofore) been commonly used for speech."
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 1:29:46 PM EDT
(continued) "Just as the civilized-warfare test protects firearms that many persons want excluded from the Second Amendment, the test also excludes firearms that many persons want to be included. The civilized-warfare cases protected large handguns, but in some applications excluded small, highly concealable handguns. This would suggest that modern bans on small, inexpensive handguns might not violate the Second Amendment. On the other hand, small handguns such as the Colt .25 pistol were used by the United States military during the Second World War. (See Charles W. Pate, "Researching the Martial .25 Colt Pistol," Man at Arms, Jan./Feb. 1995, 20-29.) (Of course, anyone using the civilized-warfare test to make such an argument must also accept the flip side of the civilized-warfare coin: "Assault weapon" prohibition is plainly unconstitutional.)"
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 1:57:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/9/2001 2:04:35 PM EDT by gardenWeasel]
Since I didn't read the post I'll just assume that you requested a photo of some WWII propaganda from 1943 published by the USDA and the CT dept of forestry. [img]http://home.earthlink.net/~thegardenweasel/propaganda.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 2:04:06 PM EDT
[b]Topic - Don't even bother reading this[/b] Excuse me. Regardless of the topic. I find it quite necessary to read the words of the Great One that we call Imbrog|lio !
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 2:10:43 PM EDT
I have now gone back and read the post. It appears I was mistaken. You can bet that if they ever pass legislation banning all military firearms, the military would all of the sudden adopt all of those firearms mentioned in the article.
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 2:21:52 PM EDT
Yeah, advancing weapons technology spells bedtime for freedom. You can see it already with the 5.7mm cartridge. It'll never be available for civilian use. Just think of how advanced the weapons available to the gov't will be in 100 years, while we'll be lucky if all we have is bolt action rifles and shotguns. If the people have roughly equally effective weapons as the gov't has, and said weapons are affordable to the average Joe, it will be very difficult for them to control us. But as weapons become more expensive and harder to use without training, the gov't gets an edge and can begin to oppress safely.
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 2:27:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 2:45:10 PM EDT
An exceptional piece Sweep. That was very thought out and logical, I will file that away for future debates with Anti's. Will people 200 years from now argue that we couldnt envision ray guns and such that can vaporize a human in the blink of a eye??? Yup.
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 3:08:25 PM EDT
It wouldn't be that hard for someone to wildcat a 5.7mm cartridge and adapt an AR15 to shoot it. >raven >You can see it already with the 5.7mm cartridge
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 4:51:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 8:15:51 PM EDT
I've often thought about the anti-gun argument, "The Founding Fathers could not have imagined Uzi machine guns that can fire several bullets at a single pull of the trigger!"
View Quote
"There had come to Prince Rupert a rare mechanician who pretended to make a pistol shooting as fast as could be presented and yet could be stopped at pleasure; and wherein the motion of the fire and bullet within was made to charge the piece with powder and bullet, to prime it and bend the cock." -- Sir Robert Moray speaking before the Royal Society, England, March 2nd, 1663.
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 8:21:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 8:46:52 PM EDT
Sweep, that is from "Birch's History of the Royal Society," as quoted in the old 1960's edition of "Small Arms of the World" by Smith & Smith. It is interesting to note how this not only describes a semi- or full-auto firearm, but even crudely but clearly describes the gas or recoil operation that makes the gun function. Whether such a thing actually existed in that day or not, somebody had a pretty good idea of what they wanted AND how it would have to work.
Top Top