Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/12/2004 11:17:18 PM EST



ONLY MUSKETS GUARANTEED
I wish everyone, especially the NRA and legislators, would look at a few facts before going on and on about the 2nd amend. right to keep and bear arms.
At the time our founding fathers drafted and signed the Bill of Rights, the most lethal gun made was a single shot, front-loading, muzzle musket that took a considerable amount of time to load between each use.
There were no automatic weapons that could fire thousands of rounds in minutes. They carried muskets when they guaranteed us the right to keep and bear arms.
What if gun manufactures were able to mass produce and distribute guns that could incinerate and entire city block with a single sqeeze of a trigger?
Would the 2nd Amend. guarantee our right to bear those?
If manufactureres developed a handgun whose bullet-sized capsules contained enough poisonous gas to kill all the children on a school yard, would the 2nd Amend. guarantee our right to keep and carry that? Certainly not.
Common sense dictates these aren't the types of arms our founding fathers guaranteed our right to bear.
This same common sense dictates AK-47 assault rifles aren't the type of arms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
Our founding fathers guaranteed us the right to keep and bear muskets.

BY Denise Voll

I THINK THAT THIS LADY'S GOT SOME PERSONAL ISSUES TO SOLVE HERSELF
SHE DON'T KNOW JACK SH*T ABOUT FIREARMS & AW'S EXCEPT WHAT SHE SEE'S IN THE GIRLYASSMAN MOVIES AND FROM THE MEDIA...

YOU GUYS NEED TO GIVE SOME KIND OF FEEDBACK ON THIS SO I CAN SEND IT TO THE NEW'S EDITOR....OR SEND IT YOURSELF..

THE EMAIL IS: editor@recordnet.com
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:22:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 11:25:09 PM EST by leelaw]
At the time of the addition of the first amendment the only type of mas spublication out there was the hand-operated printing press.. There was no internet.. Pepers were not in large circulation.. TV didn't exist.. Typewriters didn't exist.

The Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined a free-speach thing called the internet, which can cripple a man's image in seconds with just a few strokes on the keyboard. What if they make a new internet where schools can be infected by these kinds of blatant assault free-speack venues? What about billboards hundreds of feet wide assaulting a whole city block with advertisements? Should those be in the control of the citizens? I think not.

Common sense would clearly show that the freedom of speach and expression only applies to the manually-operated printing press and nothing more. The ACLU and other free-speach advocasy groups just don't read the facts before they try to sue someone about free speach and the fact is that these assault publications that can print thousands of words per minute are not what the Founding Fathers intended when they added the First Amendment.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:35:56 PM EST
leelaw: Actually, the broadcasting industry is a little bit more limited than the print media. The print media has few restraints. But both media-type share this right even though television and radio was not invented back then.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:39:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:
leelaw: Actually, the broadcasting industry is a little bit more limited than the print media. The print media has few restraints. But both media-type share this right even though television and radio was not invented back then.



Help! It's ASSAULT TELEVISION!!!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:43:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:
leelaw: Actually, the broadcasting industry is a little bit more limited than the print media. The print media has few restraints. But both media-type share this right even though television and radio was not invented back then.


In the early days of radio and film, they were not covered by the First Amendment, under that very argument. I can't recall the case name that extended the protection to them.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:58:33 PM EST
Sometimes, it's just more fun to point and laugh.

Statements like those posted above, only carry weight to PETA members, and those so against firearms that they are hopelessly lost in their own oblivian.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:21:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By leelaw:

Originally Posted By warlord:
leelaw: Actually, the broadcasting industry is a little bit more limited than the print media. The print media has few restraints. But both media-type share this right even though television and radio was not invented back then.



Help! It's ASSAULT TELEVISION!!!



Now that sounds like a reality show I could get into.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:35:21 AM EST
I found a webb page a while back that said that the French invented the machine gun in 1550. Kind of blows her theory. Knowledge is power.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:39:42 AM EST
What this stupid woman doesn't understand is the founding fathers put the right to keep and bear arms right after free speech, because those 2 are the most important. Once the government supresses the right to freely speak out against the government, the people are supposed to take their weapons, overthrow the government, and install a representative government, one that will not supress your basic freedoms, as outlined in the bill of rights.

What has been confused by people for quite a time about the 2nd is its use. You hear a lot about how it is not the government's job to protect you, and the hunting thing, but the real reason for the 2nd is to keep the government in check. Remember these guys just tossed out King George, the most powerful monarch in the world. They knew what could happen. They knew what it was like to live under non representative government., and they didn't want it to happen again.

It is a shame that people are so misled as to believe what this woman believes. I feel that if the founding fathers were around today, they would say if the government has a weapon, you should have it too. I also feel if they saw what this country has become, they would haul ass for the nearest uninhabited island.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:45:21 AM EST
Our founding fathers also had many debates on the meaning of the Second Amendment and they all agreed that it was not only to protect the country with armed militia (the average citizen) but also so the citizens can protect themselves from future attempts of tryanny from our own government. I also dont think when they framed the Bill of Rights that they EVER could concieve SOOOO many people would cave in to the gov chipping away at the Constitution so easily.


"When you have citizens that fear their government, you have tyrrany, when the governmant fears its citizens you have freedom." ---Thomas Jefferson


Why dont the sheeple just move to Canada? Then they can see how great the "Socialist Movement" lives!
head.gif
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:48:16 AM EST
I don't think that the Founding Fathers could ever have envisioned the level of ignorance that abounds today among the citizenry of America. People in their day actually read and took matters of freedom and liberty seriously.

Ignorance, apathy, and the entitlement mentality will be the death of the American experiment in self governance....
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 5:50:52 AM EST
...and Newspapers where produced laborously by hand placed text on manually operated presses. Idiotic ramblings never made it past the editor because frankly they wheren't worthwhile printing.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:16:04 AM EST
It's really quite simple, Mizz Voll - If the authors of that document had intended it to apply to muskets alone, they would have written it that way. Their use of the term "arms" would indicate their desire not to limit the RKBA to the weapons available at the time.

BTW, you're mistaking "common sense" for "this is my opinion and everybody should share it".



Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:36:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 6:43:16 AM EST by hepcat85]

Originally Posted By _Ugly_:
Sometimes, it's just more fun to point and laugh.

Statements like those posted above, only carry weight to PETA members, and those so against firearms that they are hopelessly lost in their own oblivian[/b].



No offense intended, but that statement is dangerous.

We, as responsible citizens, need to step up and set the record straight EVERY CHANCE POSSIBLE. If we turn our backs, the lawyers and liars will set the agenda and scare people in thinking black is white and up is down.

There are those who AREN'T stupid but are also not interested or engaged in the 2nd Amendment debate we live with everyday. If these folks KNEW MORE, not only will they know when kooks like the lady above are spinnig, but they might even step up and join our ranks.

We can't write off anyone as hopeless......

Has anyone responded to the posted letter to set the record straight?
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:42:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By KBL:
I don't think that the Founding Fathers could ever have envisioned the level of ignorance that abounds today among the citizenry of America. People in their day actually read and took matters of freedom and liberty seriously.



They sure did...hence all the checks and balances. The Electoral College is another.

If anything, lets repeal the ridiculous 17th Amendment. That would make local politics more important.



Ignorance, apathy, and the entitlement mentality will be the death of the American experiment in self governance....


Ignorance and apathy are the death of all things. It's our responsibility to step up and not allow it.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:44:37 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:48:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:
leelaw: Actually, the broadcasting industry is a little bit more limited than the print media. The print media has few restraints. But both media-type share this right even though television and radio was not invented back then.



Get Both!
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:03:57 AM EST
The idea of the 2nd was (is) that the people would be well armed enough to overthrow the goverment, if necessary. That entails having firepower that could actually give the military a run for its money. Given the supremacy of the U.S. military, if anything, we need to be removing restrictions for ordinary citizens, not adding them.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:08:09 AM EST
The best thing ANY gun owner should do in this situation, if given the oppurtunity, is the politely offer an explanation of the technicalities of this issue. And be polite!
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:08:35 AM EST

Common sense dictates these aren't the types of arms our founding fathers guaranteed our right to bear.


C'mon GUYS! She has COMMON SENSE ON HER SIDE!!! How can we possibly argue against someone who has COMMON SENSE ON HER SIDE!?! Shoot, I always thought common sense was on our side, how'd this bitch steal it?
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:09:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 7:09:50 AM EST by KBaker]
Doesn't anyone look at Bastiat's Flashbunny stuff? He's covered this topic perfectly here.

Give it a look.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:14:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 7:17:10 AM EST by AdrianUSP9]
This is my spin on why we can't own weapons that can incenerate a whole block full of school children, and I think it kind of makes sense.

Right now, MILLIONS of people own small arms. It would take a mass mobilization of the armed populace to rise up and overthrow the govt, meaning they have to be REALLY shitty before that happens, considering most people cant agree on what pizza toppings to order.

Now, if people were allowed to posess WMD's (or F117's, etc) - one individual could wreak havoc, possibly topple the government if he got pissed or flipped out.

Does that make sense?

this chick needs to realize that WMD's are not "arms." The right to keep and bear arms mean individual arms, firearms, small arms - not tanks, planes, chemical munitions and the such. No one is arguing it does that except her - she needs a history lesson, not more of her self-proclaimed "common sense."
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:01:26 AM EST
At the time they wanted people to have state of the art firearms just like the military. I think they want us to still have state of the art weapons like the military, how else can we defend ourself from a tyrant.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:03:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 8:10:19 AM EST by ScaryGuy]
I wasn't at all nice:


Dear Sirs,

I am writing in response to the vapid ramblings by Denise Voll you recently saw fit to publish.

At no time in her rambling, uninformed discourse, did Ms. Voll express anything resembling a fact or truth. It was simply the same empty, overly emotional, under-logical rhetoric that anti self-protection advocates have spouted forth time and time again.
I have taken the liberty of borrowing her quotes, followed by a rebuttal with facts, not empty emotional rambling:

“I wish everyone, especially the NRA and legislators, would look at a few facts before going on and on about the 2nd amend. right to keep and bear arms.”

I wish that Ms. Voll would examine a few real facts instead of the tripe she's been fed by the media and organizations like the VPC and The Million Moms before writing about something that she is obviously very ill-informed to write about. I am even more surprised that any media source would print such a poorly written and researched letter.

”At the time our founding fathers drafted and signed the Bill of Rights, the most lethal gun made was a single shot, front-loading, muzzle musket that took a considerable amount of time to load between each use. There were no automatic weapons that could fire thousands of rounds in minutes. They carried muskets when they guaranteed us the right to keep and bear arms.”

Okay, I stand corrected. There is at least one shred of truth in the otherwise hysterical carping that is this diatribe... There were indeed no fully automatic weapons available at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Happy?

”What if gun manufactures were able to mass produce and distribute guns that could incinerate and entire city block with a single sqeeze of a trigger?
Would the 2nd Amend. guarantee our right to bear those?”

Such an item would almost certainly be considered a destructive device and would not be considered the common military small arm of the day. Destructive Devices, along with artillery pieces, missiles and bombs are not the arms spoken of in writings by the framers (that’s “writers” for the historically challenged) of the Constitution, and they are not readily accessible to law abiding citizens today.

”If manufacturers developed a handgun whose bullet-sized capsules contained enough poisonous gas to kill all the children on a school yard, would the 2nd Amend. guarantee our right to keep and carry that? Certainly not.”

Again, apples to oranges, Ms. Voll. Biological weapons are not considered firearms, and would not fall under the provisions that the framers intended when writing the 2nd. I would like to notethat Ms. Voll has the "it's for the children" angle down. She has learned the anti-gunners playbook well. Rosie and Oprah would be SO proud…

”Common sense dictates these aren't the types of arms our founding fathers guaranteed our right to bear.
This same common sense dictates AK-47 assault rifles aren't the type of arms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.”

The term common sense and anti-gun arguments hardly ever collide in the same sentence, and that’s the case here as well. Military small arms are EXACTLY what the framers meant when writing the second amendment. In the 1700’s, it was indeed a musket. In 1914, a Springfield Rifle. In 1944, an M1 Garand. And today, an M-16. The Supreme Court upheld that military arms were the type intended under 2nd amendment protection in U.S. v. Miller in 1934. But, as is the norm with the anti-gun crowd, why let facts and truth get in the way of a nice emotional hissy fit?

”Our founding fathers guaranteed us the right to keep and bear muskets.”

As stated above, there were indeed only muskets available at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. There were no fully or semi-automatic weapons, a point conceded earlier.

There were also no televisions, no radios, no personal computers, no typewriters or automated printing presses, either, so I suppose the freedom of speech enumerated in the First Amendment is restricted solely to manually printed and handwritten materials, using Ms. Voll’s narrow and convoluted brand of “logic”. I had intended to label this type of logic as unique as well, buit unfortunately, it's all too common amongst the anti-freedom crowd.

If we apply a little of the common sense that Ms. Voll speaks of but is clearly lacking, (as well as a coherent thought process, I might add...) it is clear that the founding fathers knew that an armed society was a polite society, and intended to insure that a populace that had the same basic infantryman’s weapon as the military of the day would be a deterrent to those that would infringe upon the newfound liberty and freedom that the framers had fought so hard and sacrificed so much to earn.

It’s sad that in today’s world of terror, crime and murder, that there are those that would deprive our citizens of the means to protect both their families and their country, and even sadder still that there are those that would publish such a vapid diatribe who serve as willing stooges to help them advance that agenda.

Sincerely,

ScaryGuy


Link Posted: 10/13/2004 8:23:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By m98codered:


ONLY MUSKETS GUARANTEED
I wish everyone, especially the NRA and legislators, would look at a few facts before going on and on about the 2nd amend. right to keep and bear arms.
At the time our founding fathers drafted and signed the Bill of Rights, the most lethal gun made was a single shot, front-loading, muzzle musket that took a considerable amount of time to load between each use



She just killed her own argument. She admits that the 2nd Amendment concerns "the most lethal gun made." Using that concept, it doesn't matter where we go in firearms development, "the most lethal gun made" is the standard for the 2nd Amendment.

Thanks, ma'am.
Top Top