15-09-2004 02:46									#151
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Originally posted by Ned As to the Second Amendment -- it protects only the right to bear "military" style weapons. There are Supreme Court cases that actually say this. The Second Amendment is not there to protect "hunters" or people trying to defend their homes. It exists solely so that the people may form military units in defense of the nation. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" bears NO possible interpretion other than you can't frigging ban guns! It doesn't say "except when blah blah", or anything. It is a definate statement that has exactly one possible meaning. And wrt SCOTUS, it may be argued that it has usurped its power in "interpreting" the Constitution to have a meaning almost diametrically opposed to what it literally says.

You would be a lot more persuasive if you quoted the entire Second amendment and not just the parts, quoted out of context, that can be warped to support your intended meaning.

	15-09-2004 02:51									#152
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: No, but the realities mean that at this point, having the civilian populace armed with assault or even automatic weapons would not make a difference in case #2 (revolt ves internal dictatorship). Without outright and vocal support from a large section of the masses AND dissention amongs the military any armed revolt vs your local dictator will fail, period.

True. (except the no part) You need support form both the populace, and some inside people in said dictator's army. Depending on the level of popular revulsion of the dictator... if he/she is wildly unpopular, many in hte army ranks will feel the same.

Time and time and time and time again, revolutions and civil wars have occured. They continue to occur to this day.

quote: And I don;t see how people having assualt rifles or beyond would quicken dissention in the military or make the masses like the rebels.

I didn't say it would. But an armed populace with a small share of a disenfranchised military can crumble an entire empire.

	15-09-2004 03:14									#153
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned You would be a lot more persuasive if you quoted the entire Second amendment and not just the parts, quoted out of context, that can be warped to support your intended meaning.

You want the full thing (btw, I was quoting out of memory, and I wasn't sure on the precise wording of the rest)?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The first part gives the reason for the Amendment (and it's unclear as to whether it refers to security from foreign armies or domestic tyranny) - it doesn't actually make any statement of law.

	15-09-2004 04:47									#154
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

And, what did I say? I said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide weapons for the citizen so that they could form military units, also known as militias, to defend the nation. Now, it seems on further inspection, that you agree with me.

	15-09-2004 05:10									#155
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned And, what did I say? I said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide weapons for the citizen so that they could form military units, also known as militias, to defend the nation. Now, it seems on further inspection, that you agree with me.

Provide?

I don't see provide in there anywhere.

I see "the right to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed.

BTW, the founding fathers were educated and intelligent men. They knew, throughout history, governments start on deals and over time they inevitably become corrupt. What they wrote back then, they meant. And they made the right to bear arms #2 for a reason.

	15-09-2004 05:31									#156
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ned And, what did I say? I said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide weapons for the citizen so that they could form military units, also known as militias, to defend the nation.

What's your point?

	15-09-2004 07:01									#157
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison Then they'd just puncture the fuselage and send the plane crashing down randomly over New York

It's stupid comments like this that show the power Hollywood wields over people's perceptions.

	15-09-2004 07:17									#158
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I would like to see cowboy style gunbelts make a comeback in the USA.

	15-09-2004 07:21									#159
	Remove this text

The point of the 2nd Amendment - JUST LIKE THE REST of the Bill of Rights - was to protect individual liberty against the power of the federal government. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't to make militias possible, or anything of the sort.

	15-09-2004 07:31									#160
	Full PM-box? Change here!

You should learn to love your government.

	15-09-2004 07:32									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Sure, so long as the government protects individual liberty, it's great.

	15-09-2004 07:39									#162
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned I personally see no use for one to own military style weapons for hunting and the like. They could be useful for defense of one's home or business. I would rather confront a bad guy with the best automatic weapon available rather than a relatively useless pea shooter that was only going to get me killed. As to the Second Amendment -- it protects only the right to bear "military" style weapons. There are Supreme Court cases that actually say this. The Second Amendment is not there to protect "hunters" or people trying to defend their homes. It exists solely so that the people may form military units in defense of the nation.

Ted in Ca., the AR-15 is banned, but a 22 auto is not. There is no difference, they are both semiautomatic. It is because the AR-15 is the Civilian version of the M-16.
With a 22 auto Mag and a scope do you know what I coud do?

	15-09-2004 07:48									#163
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Japher I don't care about the per capita numbers, I would like to see the per household number. I think that if you own one gun you are more likely to own 2, and in the south 27...

I have 22 auto pistol 6 rounds, 22 9 shots, a .45 Cal six gun, a 357 Mag, a 9 MM 15 rounds legal, a 30/30, a 303 bote action and a 3" Mag Shotgun.

I also would like to have a 44 Mag, a 45 Cal 1911. An Uzi would be nice and maybe an AK.

My brother who lives in MO has over 100 guns. And they still drive around with them in the back window.

	15-09-2004 07:48									#164
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Sure, so long as the government protects individual liberty, it's great.

Government is your friend - we know what's best for you.

	15-09-2004 08:39									#165
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Joseph Ted in Ca., the AR-15 is banned, but a 22 auto is not. There is no difference, they are both semiautomatic. It is because the AR-15 is the Civilian version of the M-16. With a 22 auto Mag and a scope do you know what I coud do?

IIRC the Ar-15 and M-16 use a .22 diameter bullet powered by a military style .30 caliber cartiridge. This cartirdge supplies considerably more power than an ordinary .22 cartridge of the type used to hunt small game. It's also considerably more powerful than a .22 magnum. The bullet used by the AR-15, though the same diameter as the .22 bullet is larger and better designed to bring down a human being. No matter what you think you could do with a .22 auto mag, you could do a lot more damage with an AR-15, though I will concede that if you're thinking of sniping the AR-15 would not be a good choice. I'm not sure if they make a scope that would fit an AR-15 without modification.

	15-09-2004 08:55									#166
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by NeOmega Do you really think they couldn't?

No, I don't. Not if the military didn't want us to. The military in Iraq is trying to win not only the hearts and minds of Iraqis, but the whole world. In a revolutionary situation in the U.S., I'm not going to count on the military treating us with kid gloves.

quote: The history of revolution always pits "impossible" odds against a much more powerful establishment.... yet many times these odds are overcome.

Your understanding of revolution is extremely limited. No revolution against a strong state has succeeded . . . not ever. They are only possible when the system begins to break down.

quote: You are imagining a revolution against the US army, not the US government.... and it would depend greatly on the parameters of the revolution.

The U.S. Army is a part of the U.S. government. If the Army sides with the revolution, then the revolution didn't needs its own guns. If it sides against the revolution, it doesn't matter how many guns we have, we will lose.

quote: I can name dozens of ways to penetrate and destroy an army base.... most of them require a level of compliance from with in.

You undermine your argument here, that guns are necessary. What is necessar is not that the public has guns, but that we can win over a significant portion of the military to our cause.

quote: There really shouldn't be any resistance in Iraq right now... but there is.

Why shouldn't there be any resistence? Only an idiot would think there wouldn't be any resistence, which is why we're in this mess in the first place! There is a resistence because our government isn't willing to be the bastards that it would be able to crush the rebellion.

	15-09-2004 08:57									#167
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The point of the 2nd Amendment - JUST LIKE THE REST of the Bill of Rights - was to protect individual liberty against the power of the federal government.

Have you ever read the debates over the Bill of Rights?

	15-09-2004 09:01									#168
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If the military refuses to fire on its own people, then we don't need guns.

If the military is willing to fire on its own people, guns won't help us.

BTW, this military has, historically, been willing to fire on its own people.

	15-09-2004 09:04									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara If the military refuses to fire on its own people, then we don't need guns. If the military is willing to fire on its own people, guns won't help us. BTW, this military has, historically, been willing to fire on its own people.

Depends on the situation.

	15-09-2004 09:06									#170
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Unarmed students at Kent and Jackson State Univerisites 34 years ago was the last time.

	15-09-2004 09:17									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison Then they'd just puncture the fuselage and send the plane crashing down randomly over New York

Nope. Bullet holes don't interfere with the flight handling. They're just noisy and annoying for the occupant, who will have to use the drop-down oxygen masks as the pressure drops.

Planes have flown with gaping holes blown in them. One example was a Hawaiian island-hopper that had a twenty-foot section of the roof tear off. One stewardess was lost. Passengers who didn't have their seatbelts on were able to hold on and get the belts fastened without difficulty.

	15-09-2004 09:36									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap BY Africa (yes, a rather loose an incorrect term for this) I mean the endless brush wars and rebel groups and a land awash with cheap ak-47s.

Education and temperment are more important. "Africa" is not "awash" with either education or temperment suited to democracy. Very sad.

	15-09-2004 09:39									#173
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Germany and Chile were and see how much good it did either of them.

	15-09-2004 09:42									#174
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ned And, what did I say? I said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide weapons for the citizen so that they could form military units, also known as militias, to defend the nation. Now, it seems on further inspection, that you agree with me.

Not so. The Constitution addresses the rights of two distinct groups: the States and the People. It's as deep as the bicameral structure of the legislative branch and the electoral college for the executive branch.

The right to a militia respects the States, the right to bear arms respects the People. The two distinct classes of rights cannot be conflated.

	15-09-2004 09:44									#175
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Che, necessary is not "necessary and sufficient." A society with education, temperment, and arms can still fall under dictatorship. That does not void my point, for which you do not have a counter-example.

	15-09-2004 09:49									#176
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Japan.

	15-09-2004 10:04									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by NeOmega Provide? I don't see provide in there anywhere. I see "the right to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed. BTW, the founding fathers were educated and intelligent men. They knew, throughout history, governments start on deals and over time they inevitably become corrupt. What they wrote back then, they meant. And they made the right to bear arms #2 for a reason.

Good point on the "provide" angle. That actually was a major cause for the Amendment in the first place -- the fact that the Feds could pass a law saying they would be the sole provider of weapons and then not provide them.

	15-09-2004 10:05									#178
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker What's your point?

The point, K, is that the purpose of the Amendment is to arm citizens in a manner so that they can form military units. The Amendment protects ONLY military weapons, and the Supremes have endorsed this view.

	15-09-2004 10:06									#179
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The point of the 2nd Amendment - JUST LIKE THE REST of the Bill of Rights - was to protect individual liberty against the power of the federal government. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't to make militias possible, or anything of the sort.

No. The point was to protect the States against Federal Power, not the people.

	15-09-2004 10:08									#180
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Joseph Ted in Ca., the AR-15 is banned, but a 22 auto is not. There is no difference, they are both semiautomatic. It is because the AR-15 is the Civilian version of the M-16. With a 22 auto Mag and a scope do you know what I coud do?

Joe, the Federal ban on assault weapons was clearly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as it banned military style weapons. However, a California ban on the same weapons is nominally constitutional unless it interferes with a Federal law or interstate commerce.