Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Keep And Bear Arms


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Sgt

Sgt

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern TN
  • Interests:Militaria, Chess, Tools, Sherlock Holmes, Printmaking, UFOs, Ghosts, Electronics, Comic Books, Long walks in the rain, with my Savage 1928a1. (just kidding on the last one; it doesn't have to be raining) -- Ralph

Posted 16 June 2004 - 11:22 AM

Guys--
Sorry if I'm a little off the subject of Thompsons here, but it is still related in a political way. That is especially true since the Thompson is one of those milestones of modern innovation of the firearm.

Just got through watching, "Bowling for Columbine," by Michael Moore. In the part where he was harassing Charlton Heston, Moore tried to trip up Heston by questioning exactly what did our forefathers mean by "arms." To paraphrase his question, "aren't nuclear weapons arms?" Should the citizenry is be allowed to to bear those?

You see the significance of that trick question. By making an extreme point, it also brings into question all those other firearms which our forefathers had no idea that would be created. To what extremes should we regulate what we do have. I don't think anyone would question that we should prohibit nuclear weapons from the general public. So Moore is asking why should prohibiting other modern guns infringe upon our second amendment?

How would you guys respond to that liberal gobbledeegoop? I need some good responses in case I ever have to answer that one. mad.gif
  • 0

#2 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 16 June 2004 - 11:56 AM

I would tell them, "No, the second amendment does not allow citizens to own nuclear weapons."

It is the same principle that applies to the first amendment. Do you have the right to your opinions and to voice them in a peaceful manner? Yes, you do. Can you stand up in a movie theater and scream "FIRE!!!?" No, you can't.

If SMG's were not arms that could be owned by the civilians, they would have out-lawed them in 1934, 1968, 1986,or 1994. Even though each of these years is a significant point in which restrictions were put on all SMG's none of them makes it illegal to own one.

If someone were going to argue the old "aren't nuclear weapons arms?" argument, then maybe we should concentrate on when the goverment had oversteped their limits according to the tenth amendment! ohmy.gif

The REAL truth is that all ten of the Bill of Rights are infringed upon.

How speedy is a speedy trial? Let's ask Robert Blake!

They have all but repaeled the fourth amendment.

And as for cruel and unusual punisment- the victims of crimes get that while they ALSO get to pay for the criminals jail time (which is usually too short!)

Just my $.02 mad.gif

  • 0

#3 full auto 45

full auto 45

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 4581 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking over your shoulder right now
  • Interests:Thompson's, Any Machinegun, Harley's and scuba diving. In that order.

Posted 16 June 2004 - 12:44 PM

Michael Moore is a Asshole with a capitol "A", I only wish someone had the balls to knock the living shit right out of him. If I saw him, yes I would. Maybe since the frogs like him so well, he'll stay there. Just a fat prick. maybe someone should do some background checking on this guy.
  • 0

#4 Deputy 89C6

Deputy 89C6

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 92 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2004 - 12:52 PM

QUOTE (Sgt @ Jun 16 2004, 11:22 AM)


Just got through watching, "Bowling for Columbine," by Michael Moore. 

Well, first off I wouldn't watch anything done by Michael Moore. He is a caustic hypocritical ass, who only cares about hisagenda. I once had the great pleasure of wrting this ass a UTT for exceeding the posted speed limit on I -70. He tried to impress me with the fact that he was Michael Moore the film maker. I told him that he could mail in the $103.00 fine within 30 days, or if he chose to do so, he could request a hearing date within 30 days of issuance of the citation. Judging by this guy's size he should probably make a movie about the fast food industry and how it is runining America's health....Maybe he could title it " Ronald and Me"

Common sense is what is needed to regulate "arms". I'd be more afraid of the statement made by the supposed Democratic candidate for the Presidency'..."I support the people's right to bear arms" Notice he didn't say "keep and bear arms"

89C6
  • 0

#5 Sgt

Sgt

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern TN
  • Interests:Militaria, Chess, Tools, Sherlock Holmes, Printmaking, UFOs, Ghosts, Electronics, Comic Books, Long walks in the rain, with my Savage 1928a1. (just kidding on the last one; it doesn't have to be raining) -- Ralph

Posted 16 June 2004 - 01:06 PM

Yea, I've always heard that he was a left winged extremeist and I didn't realize how bad until I saw that movie for the first time. I hated the way he pushed the blame onto the backs of Mr. Heston and Kmarts. If he drilled on me like he did Mr. Heston, I wouldn't have been such a gentleman. In terms of insensitivity to the victims, I wonder if anyone ever challenged him on the fact that he is using their tragedy to promote his own career.

Good answers on that arms question so far!

Deputy, that must have been a fun ticket to write.
  • 0

#6 Cheesebeast

Cheesebeast

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 55 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 01:23 PM

Hi Sgt,

This is a good read on this subject:
http://www.freerepub...b4d979e22e7.htm

Best,
Cheese


  • 0

#7 TommyFan

TommyFan

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 143 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nashville, Tennessee

Posted 16 June 2004 - 01:48 PM

Sgt,

I read part of a Senate debate over extending the AWB months ago on www.congress.gov. The dissenting opinion mirrored Moore's in terms of asking what the definition of arms meant. The issue was that machine guns (and sub abd semi-auto) were not in the definition at the time the amendment was written, so how could they be legal for private citizens to own as part of the amendment? The response was that the National Firearms Act of 1934 would have not passed in Congress, and the 3 documented subsequent challenges (one of which made it to the Supreme Court and was upheld) would not have been left in lawif this was true. This was the proof that the definition of what constitutes a weapon is different from what constitutes a firearm. A firearm is defined as any device which fires a projectile at a target using explosive means. A weapon is something used to defend oneself or otherwise intentionally inflict damage on someone else.

By this definition, my firearm only becomes a weapon when I use it against someone. Conversely, a nuclear explosive device is only a weapon (and only causes harm) when used against somebody. I could legally be charged with murder if I hit someone with a baseball bat ( a legal sports implement), or charged with manslaughter if I killed someone who ran out in front of my car.


  • 0

#8 Z3BigDaddy

Z3BigDaddy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3697 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:State of Jefferson
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, Metal Detecting, Gun Trad'n

Posted 16 June 2004 - 03:03 PM

QUOTE (Sgt @ Jun 16 2004, 11:22 AM)


Just got through watching, "Bowling for Columbine," by Michael Moore. In the part where he was harassing Charlton Heston, Moore tried to trip up Heston by questioning exactly what did our forefathers mean by "arms." To paraphrase his question, "aren't nuclear weapons arms?" Should the citizenry is be allowed to to bear those?


On the face that argument is worthless, and not even worth a reply.... Should we be allowed to own airplanes... After all they have been proven to be a very valid "arm". I truly believe the people involved meant conventional small arms.... But you all know that already... But really what bothers me is that these A-holes cannot grasp the fact that the first amendment is dependent upon the second amendment, and not the other way around.
  • 0

#9 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 16 June 2004 - 04:04 PM

Z3 (and others)

I believe the proper term here is called ABSURD LOGIC.

Anything can be used as a weapon or "arm" (in the sense that the item can be a weapon.)

There is the obvious...guns, bombs, knives, etc.

Then there is "not so obvious" or "not intended to be" weapons, such as scissors, golf clubs, baseball bats, etc.

Finally, the absurd. Items that are so overkill, it would kill you; or it would take forever. Items such as nuclear weapons (you kill everyone!) or a "spork." (a plastic spoon/fork- that could take days! blink.gif )

I forgot who said it, but someone once said "With great freedom comes great responsiblities." It is true.

Since this subject started with Bowling for Columbine, let's not forget what really killed all of those people on that grim day....a couple of sick f#@!s!!!

Norm

  • 0

#10 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 16 June 2004 - 04:18 PM

I agree with all of you guys. smile.gif I, too, recently saw Moore's, Bowling For Columbine. It made me sick...too much liberal crap can have that effect on normal Americans. So, I immediately went out and put 200 rounds of 45 acp. through my Glock-30!! ohmy.gif That hit the spot, but I need to move to a free state (currently residing in New Yokislavia) and pick up a real tommygun, instead of my Moonie semi-auto version. I wonder if Moore is an American citizen. I have heard rumors that he was a Canadian citizen. If true, it goes a long way toward explainig his outlook. blink.gif Peter Jennings, Robert MacNeil and many other 'American' liberal media mouths also were Canadian citizens. He (Jennings) did, very recently, become an American citizen. I have nothing against Canadians...my mother was a Canadian citizen (from Toronto). However, why is it that so many of them, and other foreigners, seem to have such a great voice in domestic American political debates, concerning firearms? ph34r.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#11 Bill in VA

Bill in VA

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southwest Virginia

Posted 16 June 2004 - 04:42 PM

Well...both Websters and the Abridged OED define "arm" as simply "a weapon." They make no distinction between knives or guns, individual defensive weapons or WMDs. On to the meat of the question, "does the Second Amendment extend to 'assualt weapons' and machine guns ?"...

Reading both the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers, it's clear the founding fathers meant that the citizenry be well-armed should a standing army or tyrannical government attempt to enslave the populace through the usurpations of individual liberties. Of course it hardly bears mention that the founding fathers had no knowledge of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, and whether or not they would include these in the individual's right to bear arms is certainly debatable, albeit not without merit. The whole issue of keeping and bearing arms was intended as an individual right; a last ditch bulwark against tyranny. As such, the concept of a "well regulated militia" is that the people be armed with weapons equivalent to that of the oppressing government/army.

In Federalist 29 Alexander Hamilton stated this very idea, "if
circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the
liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens,
little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of
arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their
fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be
devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against
it ..."

James Madison echoes tehse sentiments in Federalist 46: "To these [an army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of
citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from
among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united
and conducted by governments possessing their affections and
confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus
circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of
regular troops."

Clearly then, private possession of military/militarily equivalent small arms were more than acceptable to the founding fathers. Indeed, they had no problems with larger-than-personal-arms either, as evidenced by the number of artillery pieces in the hands of merchants, ships owners/masters, etc... Consider the large numbers of letters of marque granted during the War for Independence, the Quasi War, the War of 1812, the CIvil War, and even to a degree, armed merchantmen during the First and Second World Wars. If we want to go yet another step further, regarding individual possession of military small arms, we have only to look at the Miller ruling.

In US v Miller (1939) the Court held that Miller's Second Amendment right was not violated by requiring his SBR be registered. The Court's reasoning was that an SBR has no "relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" that is, an SBR was not generally considered to be a military weapon, and as such, it should be registered. The Court further stayed, "The 'arms' referred to in the Second Amendment are [...] those which ordinarily are used for military or public defense purposes, and the [previous court] cases unanimously hold that weapons peculiarly adaptable to use by criminals are not within the protection of the Amendment."

Thus, it is crystal clear to me and my untrained, non-legal mind that that our founding fathers had no negative feelings towards individual possession of military/military equivalent firearms, even if not WMDs.
  • 0

#12 Sig

Sig

    Respected Member and Board Benefactor

  • Moderator
  • 1630 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2004 - 05:36 PM

Would not by by his warped logic civies be banned fertilizer, and diesel fuel, just too dangerous.
I like Bill in VA post and feelings even WMD should not be outlawed, I agree.
Outlawing any part of any of our rights just gives them more power.
If you think about it the reality is no one could possibly finance a nuclear weapon.
Now other WMD that is another issue.
Don't give that creep the time of day.
  • 0

#13 hawksnest

hawksnest

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:central Ohio
  • Interests:Class III weapons

Posted 16 June 2004 - 06:04 PM

Boys, if you can get a copy of the report of the 97th Congress (February 1982) titled "The right to keep and bear arms" -report of the subcommittee on the constitution of the committee of the judiciary- United States Senate (U.S. Government printing office, Washington : 1982), it will answer all your questions about the second amendment. The quote I like best is found on page 18 "... The scholars who have undertaken this research range from professors of law, history and philosophy to a United States Senator. All have concluded that the Second Amendment is an individual right protecting American Citizens in their peacful use of firearms." You may want to contact your congressman to see if he or she can obtain a copy for you of this excellent and well researched report on the right to keep and bear arms.
  • 0

#14 OldFalGuy

OldFalGuy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 700 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central Texas
  • Interests:Sporting Clays, Skeet, Reloading and just plain Living

Posted 17 June 2004 - 12:16 AM

I have an entire articel that flushes this arguement downt he drain I can email to you but here is a brief glimpse of it.
Life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, this is one of the foundations of the right to self defense and is embodied inthe second amendment. Ergo, under the Constitution, people should have the right to own the best means of self-defense that they can afford.
All that makes sense as a general rule; but it doesn't satisfy the "mystic nuclear weapons exception," it doesn't give us a general principle to determine which weapons and instruments people can have and which they can't -- it doesn't really define what a "means of self defense" is. But it does give us a starting point. Since the right to own weapons stems out of the right to self-defense, then people must only have the "right" to own weapons that are an efficient means of self-defense. Ideally, we'd be looking for something that could only work against "bad guys," but that will probably be always beyond our science; for now, we have to leave that job up to the human brain. This means a few things: most importantly, it means that the weapon in question must be capable of use with discretion, that is, it must be possible to use the weapon only against aggressors. If the weapon has any nasty side effects -- like inevitably killing innocent bystanders, killing the user, killing at random, killing people who happen to be in the same general area fifty years later (and are hence inevitably also innocent bystanders,) or some such similar flaw, then it can't be considered a "just" weapon, because its use would inevitably violate the non-aggression principle outlined above. For an individual armament to be an "efficient" means of self-defense, then, it has to be controllable by an individual; the individual user must have the capability to specify targets. Therefore we have our rule: people have the right to own whatever weapons they can obtain and use, provided that those weapons are of the sort which can be used without aggressing against innocents.

If you need more email me at mmaund@remove this spamguardand xxxxxaustin.rr.com
  • 0

#15 Sgt

Sgt

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern TN
  • Interests:Militaria, Chess, Tools, Sherlock Holmes, Printmaking, UFOs, Ghosts, Electronics, Comic Books, Long walks in the rain, with my Savage 1928a1. (just kidding on the last one; it doesn't have to be raining) -- Ralph

Posted 17 June 2004 - 02:01 PM

I can't remember the name, but someone recently did a documentary film called, "Michael Moore Hates America." I think it gave Moore a little of his own medicine.
  • 0

#16 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 17 June 2004 - 03:35 PM

Sgt,

Maybe someone should make a film called America Hates Michael Moore. laugh.gif
  • 0

#17 Hurridale

Hurridale

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 June 2004 - 07:54 PM

Thompsons? Anything to do with THOMPSONS here? How about moving this to the "NON-related Topics Forum", described as "NON - Related Topics
Politcal - Laws - Rants - Jokes - Whatever. "

Stay on target, boys. Accuracy counts even for "Spray and Pray".

Regards,
DC
  • 0

#18 Sgt

Sgt

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern TN
  • Interests:Militaria, Chess, Tools, Sherlock Holmes, Printmaking, UFOs, Ghosts, Electronics, Comic Books, Long walks in the rain, with my Savage 1928a1. (just kidding on the last one; it doesn't have to be raining) -- Ralph

Posted 17 June 2004 - 09:29 PM

Hurridale--
You're probably right. That means we should probably relocate our information about AWB and birthday listings. Gee, wished we had more traffic on the other forums. At any rate, I won't post any straying topics again.
  • 0

#19 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 17 June 2004 - 10:45 PM

Sgt., remember someone once wrote that, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds!" I don't recall who the original author was, but we all might think of it as a reminder, not to be ordinary (not that I think any of us are ordinary). rolleyes.gif blink.gif smile.gif Best Regards, Walter
  • 0

#20 Sgt

Sgt

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern TN
  • Interests:Militaria, Chess, Tools, Sherlock Holmes, Printmaking, UFOs, Ghosts, Electronics, Comic Books, Long walks in the rain, with my Savage 1928a1. (just kidding on the last one; it doesn't have to be raining) -- Ralph

Posted 17 June 2004 - 11:29 PM

Maybe I should have said, I won't post anymore straying topics without the word, "Thompson". You guys kill me! tongue.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
  • 0