09-05-2002 15:09									#121
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GP Thanks. It's not like I can't handle the kick. But I definitely have to shoot the weapon with both hands. And it moves upwards dramatically after shooting. (Seems like this happens to everybody. at least form watching at firing range.) 9 mm is really different. It's like "tink, tink, tink".

My uncle complained about the same thing. He said the trick to firing the .45 was to anticipate the line that the .45 would wander to, so that you could adjust quickly and bring it right back on to the target. If you are thinking of getting a gun for personal use, try a non 1911 Colt design. Both MtG and I have Sig .45s, and I can tell you that mine has no tendency to rear up like that. In fact it's definitely the most accurate center fire pistol I've ever owned, which is a nice feeling since it's designed as a smaller carry version of the P220 (with a slightly shorter barrel). I do fire with both hands, but that's just the way I was taught, it's not necessary to control the weapon.

I never liked the 9mm. I had nothing against it originally, but I only found one that I could regularly hit with, and many which were either inaccurate or just didn't match up well with me. The one that I had good luck with was a fairly cheap Ruger btw. One of my roomates in the army had a Sig P226, which was really expensive, and I couldn't hit with it. It was frustrating because I could shoot the eyes out of a gnat from 25 meters with my .22 target pistol in those days, but struggled to hit a can with consecutive shots at the same distance with what was then a state of the art handgun.

	09-05-2002 16:11									#122
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Sikander I haven't ever seen AP ammo made for handguns (in fact just the opposite with non-penetrating rounds popular for home defense), though of course that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The vast majority that I have seen was military surplus ammo, and it isn't all that useful for hunting to be sure. The only reasons I could see in making it for handguns are: 1) To give someone the capability of taking on armored foes with a handgun. Which begs the question, why aren't you arming properly for this in the first place? 2) To give outfitters / guides / others who work outdoors in Alaska a capability to defend themselves and their clients from grizzlies, kodiaks and polar bears without having them have to haul a rifle or one of those super-magnum handguns around.

As I understand, it the cop killers were originally designed by the police to deal with shooting at (through) windshields etc. It is AP handgun ammunition and as you have posted yourself its uses are limited.

Personally, the idea of meeting a large bear with only a handgun is not a good thought, but its better than nothing. Since I've never been much of a shot over 200m with a rifle and grizzlies can reach speeds of 40mph I think I'd rather have something like a .50 cal machine gun.

	09-05-2002 16:15									#123
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH As I understand, it the cop killers were originally designed by the police to deal with shooting at (through) windshields etc. It is AP handgun ammunition and as you have posted yourself its uses are limited. Personally, the idea of meeting a large bear with only a handgun is not a good thought, but its better than nothing. Since I've never been much of a shot over 200m with a rifle and grizzlies can reach speeds of 40mph I think I'd rather have something like a .50 cal machine gun.

And I'd like to have that 50 cal. mounted on a helicopter! As far as the handgun thing, I guess a lot of people working in the wild can't carry rifles easily and still do their work. I would prefer a long arm personally, though I've only contemplated working in Alaska once, and it was an indoor job.

	09-05-2002 19:09									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Take a look at places where the gun laws are strictest in the U.S. (hint: They are large urban areas and states which include a high proportion of their population in large urban areas), and then note their crime rates. There is a very obvious connection to the two stats. That connection is that strict gun laws have been passed in many of the most dangerous parts of the country as a reaction to their high murder rates. Conversely much of the country has less strict gun laws, more guns and less crime. I rate the reactive factor (momentum for gun restrictions based upon high crime rates) as more important than the reluctance of criminals to do their business where their victims are more likely to be armed, though I think both factors are in play.

The causal relationship is unclear at this point, because large urban areas tend to contain slums, and slums tend to be prone to crime. When you have a higher concentration of people, the number of crimes go up even when the crime rate stays the same. So how does the whole thing look per capita and adjusted by income?

	09-05-2002 20:05									#125
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by loinburger There was a law against secession?

It is not permitted under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court ruling on the matter upheld that view. Waaaay back in the thread about the South I showed how the Constitution fully gave Lincoln the authority to act as he did in terms of sending Federal troops into the South to quell the uprising.

	09-05-2002 20:07									#126
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by MrFun There was no explicit law against it --- but just as there is no written law against murder, it is still illegal.

Wrong-o, the Constitution does prohibit it. Just not in the terms "You can't secede!" It is based on several different clauses in the Constitution.

	09-05-2002 20:33									#127
	Tired of ads?

The Declaration of Independence itself provides for secession - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

	09-05-2002 20:41									#128
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Article 10 reserves to the states and the people all powers not delegated to the national government or prohibited by the constitution to the states. Secession by the states from the union is not directly prohibited by the constitition therefore it was legal.

	09-05-2002 20:41									#129
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: The Declaration of Independence itself provides for secession - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

The Declaration of Independence has no place in Constitutional Law, or any law for that matter... it was merely a propaganda piece.

	09-05-2002 20:42									#130
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Spencer: Article 1 of the Constitution forbids states from leaving because it prevents states from breaking contracts... The Constitution of the United States is one such contract.

	09-05-2002 20:42									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH The Declaration of Independence itself provides for secession - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document nor does anything within it have a bearing on the Constitutionality of our laws. In addition, the right of some people to abolish said government does not trump the right of other people (whom, during the Civil War, constituted the majority of the people in the U.S.) to wish to keep the government in tact.

Were it the majority opinion that the U.S. government be abolished, and the people had come together to do as such, then this argument might hold, but that was not the case, so it does not.

Secession was unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

	09-05-2002 21:00									#132
	Inflate your Upload Space

As you've said the declaration of independence was not law, but it does illuminate the thinking of the founders of this country. They were carrying o a revolution against their lawful ruler. Does it make sense that they would virtually forbid secession? I dont think so.

	09-05-2002 21:08									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Spencer: Article 1 of the Constitution forbids states from leaving because it prevents states from breaking contracts... The Constitution of the United States is one such contract.

I've looked through article 1 and the only piece that references contracts is this:

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty , alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts , or grant any title of nobility.

The clear meaning to me of this section is that the individual states shall not attempt to usurp the powers granted to the government of the entire union. I dont see this as a prohibition to leaving the union.

	09-05-2002 21:16									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH As you've said the declaration of independence was not law, but it does illuminate the thinking of the founders of this country. They were carrying o a revolution against their lawful ruler. Does it make sense that they would virtually forbid secession? I dont think so.

Those same Founding Fathers showed the right way to do it when they abolished the Articles of Confederation and established the Constitution. That was by a consensus it wasn't working and a new agreement needed to be worked out. There was no consensus in 1860 for a new government. It was, in fact, the opinion of a very vocal and hot-headed minority. I certainly don't think the Michigan Militia has any right to break away from the rest of the country just because they happen to be anti-government freakazoids.

I don't think Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison and the like would have approved or tolerated the manner in which the South tried to split from the Union, particularly since the justification given by the initial seceding states was the election of Lincoln. The notion that a state can withdraw during a temper tantrum over who wins an election is, to me, clearly wrong. Otherwise the fabric binding the nation is subject to the whims of any state legislature.

Constitutionality:

If you all (or y'all ) can be patient, tonight I will point out the relavent Constitutional passages (it is many tied into one). And again, the SCOTUS ruled that secession was indeed unconstitutional.

	09-05-2002 21:49									#135
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Boris

I have to admit I like that argument.

Couple of points though. The Issue then becomes whether there was true consensus amongst the people of each state that seceded from the union (and that I have no idea about).

As for the decision by the SCOTUS in 1869 as to the legality of secession, its pretty clear that that august body is as affected by their personal beliefs as are any individual people. I wonder if that ruling would hold up today if challenged (and heard).

	09-05-2002 21:52									#136
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH The Declaration of Independence itself provides for secession - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

What rights did the Southern states have taken away from them that they had to secede?? None -- the federal government was operating legitimately.

And that is IF the Declaration of Independence could be used as a legal document.

And under which document is there a law written that says muder is illegal??

	09-05-2002 21:56									#137
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Boris I have to admit I like that argument. Couple of points though. The Issue then becomes whether there was true consensus amongst the people of each state that seceded from the union (and that I have no idea about).

In some, there was. In others, there cleary wasn't. The South had a much more difficult time with rebellions and suppression pro-Union segments of its population than the Union ever had doing the same thing in their borders. The NYC draft riot was single biggest domestic uprising in the Union (not counting, of course, the Southern Rebellion ), and it was small potatoes to what Jeff Davis had to contend with in the South. David himself wrote at length blasting the notions of "States Rights," which he saw as destroying the ability of the C.S.A to wage its war successfully.

quote: As for the decision by the SCOTUS in 1869 as to the legality of secession, its pretty clear that that august body is as affected by their personal beliefs as are any individual people. I wonder if that ruling would hold up today if challenged (and heard).

I have not done an in-depth reading of the decision, and while there was undoubtedly partisanship involved, I've not read of constitutional scholars (aside from some firebrand Southern ones) who find much problem with it.

	09-05-2002 22:10									#138
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by MrFun What rights did the Southern states have taken away from them that they had to secede?? None -- the federal government was operating legitimately.

I've heard of two causes for the attempted secession that relate to loss of the states powers, slavery, and northern interference with legitimate trade by the south with europe. I suspect that the trade matters stirred the waters enough that Lincolns election was the final blow.

	09-05-2002 22:24									#139
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Abraham Lincoln wanted to prevent further expansion of slavery into western territories.

How does this take away states' rights??

	09-05-2002 22:41									#140
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Begining of the end.

	09-05-2002 23:11									#141
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Begining of the end.

Slippery slope rationalizing from Southern States, especially considering S. Carolina had been itching to secede since the 1830s, and Lincoln's election was the fault of a split Democratic party anyway (which was split because the South was so extreme, the Northern Democrats couldn't stomach it).

	10-05-2002 01:20									#142
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Sikander My uncle complained about the same thing. He said the trick to firing the .45 was to anticipate the line that the .45 would wander to, so that you could adjust quickly and bring it right back on to the target. If you are thinking of getting a gun for personal use, try a non 1911 Colt design. Both MtG and I have Sig .45s, and I can tell you that mine has no tendency to rear up like that. In fact it's definitely the most accurate center fire pistol I've ever owned, which is a nice feeling since it's designed as a smaller carry version of the P220 (with a slightly shorter barrel). I do fire with both hands, but that's just the way I was taught, it's not necessary to control the weapon.

I'm not a big shooter. Did get my sharpshooter ribbon for .45. (in 1984...) Got some training from one of the guys on the USNA pistol team for a day or so. Yeah I hold both hands on the weapon because it's better firing position regardless. But it has a hell of an upwards kick. bends your elbows and moves overhead. I wouldn't like to think about controlling the weapon with one hand. Might fly out of your hand.

The kick means you have to pull the weapon back into position and resight pretty quickly. (I mean it's moved a ways.) Also, at least for me, makes it a little more psychologically hard to concentrate on squeezing versus pulling. the whole "let the gun go off" thing. I find myself tending to anticipate the recoil and (of course) messing up my sight alignment. Can overcome this...but it requires more concentration than with the 9mm, which is more gentle.

You must have shot .45 right? It's the standard pistol in the service. For guard duty and stuff like that.

	10-05-2002 06:00									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by MrFun None -- the federal government was operating legitimately.

The question was, "where is the law that says that it was illegal for the states to secede?" If there's no law, and if it isn't in the Constitution, then it isn't illegal.

quote: And under which document is there a law written that says muder is illegal??

Every single state in the nation has passed a law to outlaw murder. So I suppose the "document" would be the law books.

The Constitution may be the highest law in the US, but that doesn't mean that it's the only law in the US.

	10-05-2002 06:26									#144
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by loinburger The question was, "where is the law that says that it was illegal for the states to secede?" If there's no law, and if it isn't in the Constitution, then it isn't illegal.

Who cares? The Confederacy declared war upon the United States.

There's a website I located using google, searching either "Fort Sumter" or "Civil War, causes" that features some of the speeches given by prominent Southern politicians arguing before their state legislatures in late 1860 and early 1861. They're real eye-openers. Many of these guys were floridly psychotic. The speeches leave no doubt that the South seceeded almost entirely for the cause of slavery. They also make it clear that the Southern politicians looked upon the American West, Mexico, and Cuba as essentially their god-given land. They viewed abolition, even in the free states as immoral and illegal, and considered the existence of the free states as a violation of their rights. Frankly some of these speeches on their own, delivered in the legislature of one country, openly threatening another country could have been considered in and of themselves as sufficient justification for the threatened country to declare war.

I'm not going to post a link to it because I've done it twice before.

	10-05-2002 06:45									#145
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Who cares? The Confederacy declared war upon the United States.

Oh, I'm not questioning the causes of the Civil War, or who was justified in doing what when. I'm just challenging MrFun's misuse of the word "illegal."

quote: Originally posted by MrFun The Confederacy was an illegal establishment of a new nation, thus, it was not legitimate in the first place.

MrFun said that something can be illegal even if there isn't a law against it (like murder ). I'm just wondering how that works.

	10-05-2002 06:54									#146
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Bah! It would've been better if the South had stayed independent. All my studies have shown this. It would've cut all the excess, useless fat off of the United States as well as busting down American jingoists a notch. The world would be a better place. Ah, the slavery thing would've been dealt with before 1900... there was no way the Confederates could hold onto it that much longer. In fact, pro-Confederate organizations in the South were already making movements towards gradual emancipation as early as 1862.


Given the situation world-wide at the time, my studies have shown that a possible Southern victory very well might have prevented World War I and would have AT LEAST prevented World War II.

	10-05-2002 08:00									#147
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Secession was not legal.

Article VI:

"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Upon assuming their duties as State Legislators, said men were administered the above oath (as were governors). Under this article, they are bound by this oath. It was the same state legislators who voted to secede in each state. Therefore, the second they cast those votes, they violated this oath. They were consequently in violation of the Constitution and were considered to be in sedition.

Article 1, section 8 and Article 4, Section 4 grant the Federal government the ability to put down insurrections. Article 1 Section 8 also gives the president the authority (through congress) to call up state militias for such a purpose, thereby invalidating the secession arguments of the second group of states to try to withdraw. Article 4 section 4 gives the president to send troops into a state to quell rebellion even over the objections of the state legislature or governor. He can even do it over the objections of congress (as he can send troops wherever he wants), but congress can withhold payment of those forces.

	10-05-2002 08:37									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II Bah! It would've been better if the South had stayed independent. All my studies have shown this. It would've cut all the excess, useless fat off of the United States as well as busting down American jingoists a notch. The world would be a better place. Ah, the slavery thing would've been dealt with before 1900... there was no way the Confederates could hold onto it that much longer. In fact, pro-Confederate organizations in the South were already making movements towards gradual emancipation as early as 1862. Given the situation world-wide at the time, my studies have shown that a possible Southern victory very well might have prevented World War I and would have AT LEAST prevented World War II.

What rot! Yeah, in some ways the US might have been better off without the ol' Confederate States, if only because there would never have been a civil rights crisis in the 60s, but given a free choice the South would never have abolished slavery on their own. It was the most venerated feature of their culture.

Here's what I believe might have happened. Let's suppose that civil war was avoided; perhaps in an uncharacteristically diplomatic moment Jeff Davis offers the US right of passage on the Mississippi in exchange for ownership of the Federal forts built in Southern waters, and Lincoln agrees. Under such circumstances the Rebs would have gone wild. They would have picked fights with Spain over Cuba and France over Mexico. Within a few years they'd have gotten themselves into a war with most of the world. Either they would have wound up partitioned among the powers of Europe or the US would have intervened and taken them back into the union.

Even if one supposes that the Confederacy wouldn't wind up loosing it's independence over some foolish excess, I don't know why anyone would hypothesize that it's existence would have greatly influenced early 20th century European politics. Why wouldn't WW I have happened if the Confederacy had survived as a nation? Oh, I know, I know!!! Because the German Empire would have seen through all that Southern bluster, whomped them, and made them a colony, thus satisfying the Kaiser's lust for a hunk of world geography!

You haven't ben reading that garbage that Turtledove writes have you? He's a closet Klansman you know.

	10-05-2002 08:41									#149
	Tired of ads?

*claps for Dr. Strangelove*

	10-05-2002 10:41									#150
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Oh, I'm not questioning the causes of the Civil War, or who was justified in doing what when. I'm just challenging MrFun's misuse of the word "illegal." MrFun said that something can be illegal even if there isn't a law against it (like murder ). I'm just wondering how that works.

Thanks for everyone's input from both sides.


If I can find something that is illegal in the United States, but there is no written law on it, then I could prove my argument.

However, if that is not the case, then you're right on this point.


In that case however, like Boris has pointed out, secession would be illegal for other reasons.