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."

(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.)"

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]

[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 !

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.

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.  

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.

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

"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.

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.