Feel free to point out where you come to your conclusion. To just tell me to go read, does nothing when I am in agreement with the Constitution and it's amendments, even though they are not perfect. I am secure knowing that on this issue, you have the misunderstanding.
Since you dont want to do as i asked and actually see what our founders intended, ( and why 'mass destruction' would be included in their vision ) there really is nothing further to discuss.
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 06-22-2014).]
Since you dont want to do as i asked and actually see what our founders intended, ( and why 'mass destruction' would be included in their vision ) there really is nothing further to discuss.
OK, I understand why you would want to cut and run from your strange and indefensible position. It is not up to me to provide evidence that the founding fathers wanted to to be ready to indescriminently gas, nuke or biologically infect a lethal does of "microbes" at a random taget in an EXTREMELY random manor. That is an opinion or version of yours to prove.
Ok, this is getting rediculous. NO, you are not allowed to possess Chlorine gas, weaponized Anthrax, an Atom Bomb. To take the attitude that one commenter here has been utilizing is absolutely ludicrous.
Explosives are regulated. The kind used for mining, construction and dropping buildings is regulated. You need to have a license stating that you know what you are doing to use them. Normally the explosives used for these purposes are locked up in bunkers or other secured locations. There are regulations regarding how they are used and which require any explosives removed from the storage facility have to be signed out and any remaing units have to be logged back in.
Fully automatic weapons have been regulated since 1934 and the odds are that you more likely to kill someone with your car than that a legal owner of an automatic weapon willl use their firearm illegally. Yes there are instances where an automatic weapon is used to commit a crime. Those are either illegally converted civilian arms (See Machine Gun Kelley) Stolen from Military or Law Enforcement agencies or stolen off of trucks while in shipment. In fact, if you have a license for Class three firearms, you have to keep the license with the device and you are subject to a no knock serch at any time to ensure that you have every device for which you have been granted a license as well as all paperwork relating to that noise suppressor, full automatic firearm, short rifle or shotgun or any other device which qualifies as a title 3 device.
BTW, the individuals convicted of the Murrough Building bombing in 95 used fertilizer and motor oil to build their device. Common old fertilizer, used all over the agricultural midsection of this country.
Even though we have differing philosophies, I actually have respect for Yellowstone.
Jim
[This message has been edited by J-Holland (edited 06-22-2014).]
OK, I understand why you would want to cut and run from your strange and indefensible position. It is not up to me to provide evidence that the founding fathers wanted to to be ready to indescriminently gas, nuke or biologically infect a lethal does of "microbes" at a random taget in an EXTREMELY random manor. That is an opinion or version of yours to prove.
I gave you the location of the evidence you asked for, you just dont want to read it. Ignorance must be bliss.
Nurb, I was not referring to you at all. I was trying to explain in simple language to Rickady what a fool he is (Obviously I failed). I have no issues with you at all. And I have probably been using firearms longer than you. And I have made Chlorine gas...and not by accident.
[This message has been edited by J-Holland (edited 06-22-2014).]
Nurb, I was not referring to you at all. I was trying to explain in simple language to Rickady what a fool he is (Obviously I failed). I have no issues with you at all. And I have probably been using firearms longer than you. And I have made Chlorine gas...and not by accident.
AH, then i take back my statement.. sorry about that. I jumped the gun ( so to speak )
Looks like we agree. Why are we debating? We do not have the "right" to own WMD.
quote
OK, I understand why you would want to cut and run from your strange and indefensible position. It is not up to me to provide evidence that the founding fathers wanted to to be ready to indescriminently gas, nuke or biologically infect a lethal does of "microbes" at a random taget in an EXTREMELY random manor. That is an opinion or version of yours to prove.
This too, is an opinion (yours, and therefore, your responsibility to prove. Cannon and shot, were the WMD of the immediate post colonial period. There were no restrictions on owning one--or several--and many private citizens legally did, as well as copious amts of ball, shot, and gunpowder. In fact, the laws of the time allowed private citizens to not only own cannon, but men-of-war ships bristling with such armament.
As late as 1835, it was still commonplace for citizens to be able to purchase artillery. The citizens of Cincinnati Ohio, did exactly that, bought two 6 pounders from an armament foundry, and shipped them to Texas to aid in their struggle for independence. This is a matter of public record, and indisputable.
quote
TWIN SISTERS. On November 17, 1835, after Francis Smith convinced the people of Cincinnati, Ohio, to aid the cause of the Texas Revolution,qv the Ohioans began raising funds to procure two cannons and their attendant equipment for Texas. Since the United States was taking an official stance of neutrality toward the rebellion in Texas, the citizens of Cincinnati referred to their cannon as "hollow ware." Two guns, probably six pounders, were manufactured at the foundry of Greenwood and Webb in Cincinnati and then shipped down the Mississippi to New Orleans. William Bryan,qv an agent of the Republic of Texasqv in New Orleans, took official possession of the guns on March 16, 1836. From New Orleans the guns were placed on the schooner Pennsylvania and taken to Galveston Island. For some reason they were not accompanied by their limbers and ammunition, perhaps because the dangerous military situation in the republic did not allow for any delays. The cannons arrived in Galveston at the beginning of April 1836. On board the Pennsylvania was the family of Dr. Charles Rice, who was moving to Texas. Upon arrival in Galveston the guns were presented to representatives of Texas under the sponsorship of Dr. Rice's twin daughters, Elizabeth and Eleanor. Someone in the crowd made notice of the fact that there were two sets of twins in the presentation, the girls and the guns, and thus the cannons became the Twin Sisters.
You really really need to go to a website like The Avalon Project and read The Jefferson Papers some day.
And if you truly believe WMD such as biological warfare is something new, you are again mistaken or un-informed.
quote
In 1763, Pontiac's War began on the frontier. Pontiac, an Ottawa war leader, began urging the defeated Indian tribes that had been allied to the French during the French and Indian War to join together to continue the fight against the British. Pontiac initiated attacks on frontier forts and settlements, believing the defeated French would rally and come to their aid. The conflict began with the siege of Fort Detroit on May 10, 1763. Fort Sandusky, Fort Michilimackinac, Fort Presque Isle, and numerous other frontier outposts were quickly overrun. Several frontier forts in the Ohio Country had fallen to the allied tribes, and Fort Pitt, Fort Ligionier, and Fort Bedford along Forbes's road were besieged or threatened. Bouquet, who was in Philadelphia, threw together a hastily organised force of 500 men, mostly Scots Highlanders, to relieve the forts. On August 5, 1763, Bouquet and the relief column were attacked by warriors from the Delaware, Mingo, Shawnee, and Wyandot tribes near a small outpost called Bushy Run, in what is now Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. In a two day battle, Bouquet defeated the tribes and Fort Pitt was relieved. The battle marked a turning point in the war. It was during Pontiac's War that Bouquet gained a certain lasting infamy. In a series of letters during the summer of 1763 between Bouquet and his commander, General Jeffery Amherst, the idea was raised of infecting the Indians who had besieged Fort Pitt with smallpox by giving them infected blankets from the fort's smallpox hospital. Amherst wrote to Bouquet, then in Lancaster, on about June 29, 1763: "Could it not be contrived to send the small pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them."[3] Bouquet agreed, replying to Amherst on July 13: "I will try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself."[4] Amherst responded on July 16: "You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race."[5] The journal of William Trent, the commander of the militia at the fort, has provided what some claim may be evidence that at least some measure of this plan was carried out is provided by though it appears that Trent had already carried out the plan before Amherst had proposed it to Bouquet. The claim that these letter provide evidence is disputed: [June] 24th [1763] The Turtles Heart a principal Warrior of the Delawares and Mamaltee a Chief came within a small distance of the Fort Mr. McKee went out to them and they made a Speech letting us know that all our [POSTS] as Ligonier was destroyed, that great numbers of Indians [were coming and] that out of regard to us, they had prevailed on 6 Nations [not to] attack us but give us time to go down the Country and they desired we would set of immediately. The Commanding Officer thanked them, let them know that we had everything we wanted, that we could defend it against all the Indians in the Woods, that we had three large Armys marching to Chastise those Indians that had struck us, told them to take care of their Women and Children, but not to tell any other Natives, they said they would go and speak to their Chiefs and come and tell us what they said, they returned and said they would hold fast of the Chain of friendship. Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect. They then told us that Ligonier had been attacked, but that the Enemy were beat off.[6] It is not clear if Amherst and Bouquet had knowledge of Trent's actions when they were discussing the idea or if Trent had been given orders to carry out the plan from Bouquet, Amherst, or someone else or if he came up with the idea on his own. What is known is then an outbreak of smallpox did occur among the area Indians prior to the incident but smallpox at Fort Pitt along with some outside infected areas generated even greater damage to the Native Americans. Since the smallpox incident at Fort Pitt, it is estimated that 400,000-500,000 (possibly up to 1.5 million) Native Americans - men, women, and children - died during and years after the Pontiac's War, mostly from smallpox given by the British and some in the outside infected areas than in combat. The incident at Fort Pitt was one of the first known case of deliberate biological warfare in North America.[7][8][9]
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-23-2014).]
You really really need to go to a website like The Avalon Project and read The Jefferson Papers some day.
OK, I have neen told a few times that I am the one who is wrong. That I need to go read something. That I need to get educated. OK, prove me wrong. I say we dont have the right to own OR possess OR use WMD (outside of military or some Government agency ). IF, you are so confident in YOUR personal interruption of the 2nd amendment, then put your reputation where your mouth is. Where can you buy chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on the open "legal" American market? Show pictures of yours or ANY American in the USA, stash of WMD. Show me that I am the one who is wrong. Prove to me with hard facts that Americans have this stuff. Dont tell me what you "wish". Dont tell me what YOU or some some else "thinks" the Constitution says. YOUR opinion is no more superior OR inferior than mine. They are JUST opinions. SHOW ME THE MONEY. I THINK YOU ARE WRONG. Prove to me that we have the right to own WMD and prove it by showing me that pepole have them and where to buy them, OR ADMIT DEFEAT. ANYTHING less than proof is just a hope of what you wish the Constitution actually says.
At gun shows with big book sellers there are books on how to convert some popular guns to fully automatic.
Dont listen to some of the internet chatter about your 2nd amendment rights, then build that thing and blast a few hundred rounds off in a second at your local range. The Judge wont buy your "I heard on the internet that I have the right to have this full automatic hand gun" excuse. And PLEASE DONT cook up some chemical agent and practice deployment technique just because some nutjob says its your right.
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: No Nukes is good nukes. To know nukes is to hate nukes.
Better the gun you know than the tyrant you don't!
OK, the guns I get, I relate and understand. We are burdened with extreme and unjust laws governing gun ownership and there use. Nukes, ....mixed bag. They have stopped a war and saved literally unknown number of life's. Maybe have caused and unknown number of tyrannical rampages too?? But you left out the chems and bios. Both of wich can be made.much like crack in a home grown lab. What about them. Dont they deserve some funny sarcastic epitaph?
At gun shows with big book sellers there are books on how to convert some popular guns to fully automatic.
While that is true, ( you can get it online for free, or use common sense and figure it out yourself ) the BATF will come visit you if you dont have a license to do that, and they find out.
OK, I have neen told a few times that I am the one who is wrong. That I need to go read something. That I need to get educated. OK, prove me wrong. I say we dont have the right to own OR possess OR use WMD (outside of military or some Government agency ). IF, you are so confident in YOUR personal interruption of the 2nd amendment, then put your reputation where your mouth is. Where can you buy chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on the open "legal" American market? Show pictures of yours or ANY American in the USA, stash of WMD. Show me that I am the one who is wrong. Prove to me with hard facts that Americans have this stuff. Dont tell me what you "wish". Dont tell me what YOU or some some else "thinks" the Constitution says. YOUR opinion is no more superior OR inferior than mine. They are JUST opinions. SHOW ME THE MONEY. I THINK YOU ARE WRONG. Prove to me that we have the right to own WMD and prove it by showing me that pepole have them and where to buy them, OR ADMIT DEFEAT. ANYTHING less than proof is just a hope of what you wish the Constitution actually says.
Did myself or anyone else say we could purchase what is commonly called WMD on the open market today?
No, I don't think they did. I know I did not. That right still exists, (the constitution explicitly sates so)) but has been subdued by an oppressive and over reaching govt.
No, I cannot purchase a piece of artillery any more, as our founding fathers were able to. That ability was taken away by a fearful govt. I can however, in my occupation, legally purchase everything required to build a very high explosive device. Thousands of people make these same purchases every year--legally.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-23-2014).]
OK, so you gave your opinion or personal interpretation. In and of itself is OK. But we as Americans do not have the freedom to interpret the Constitution or laws. We follow the interpretation of courts. Like it or not, America is a free Nation of laws and rules.
Your opinion is as valid as mine or anyone else's, but dont pass your opinion off as THE truth. Bottom line of this debate is that we do not have a Constitutional right to own WMD. But some opinions are that we should. For the record I am glad the official interpretation of the Constitution does not grant us WMD.
OK, so you gave your opinion or personal interpretation. In and of itself is OK. But we as Americans do not have the freedom to interpret the Constitution or laws. We follow the interpretation of courts. Like it or not, America is a free Nation of laws and rules.
Your opinion is as valid as mine or anyone else's, but dont pass your opinion off as THE truth. .
Regarding this statement, the truth is the truth regardless of what even a judge or king says our rights are tomorrow or 100 years down the road. Something may become illegal, and carry a punishment. But could still be what our constitution and bill of rights granted us, just not honored by our leaders. How else does tyranny remain blocked? In the big picture, when it counts every man interprets for themselves regardless. Most people I believe operate on thier own moral compass no matter what rule of the land is. Look at riots and looting for example. For any who do not have a decent compass of their own hopefully the advantage of being a member of society, and the deterrent of punishment is enough to keep them productive members of our country.
Regarding this statement, the truth is the truth regardless of what even a judge or king says our rights are tomorrow or 100 years down the road. Something may become illegal, and carry a punishment. But could still be what our constitution and bill of rights granted us, just not honored by our leaders. How else does tyranny remain blocked? In the big picture, when it counts every man interprets for themselves regardless. Most people I believe operate on thier own moral compass no matter what rule of the land is. Look at riots and looting for example. For any who do not have a decent compass of their own hopefully the advantage of being a member of society, and the deterrent of punishment is enough to keep them productive members of our country.
A moral compass is one thing, but the Courts have the final say or interpretation on the legal compass. Just ask the rioters in your analogy how their interpretation of right and wrong worked out for them? Much of what you said is true and I agree with. Maybe some time in the future an oppressive tyrannical government rule / judge / interpret that we can possess WMD. Could it happen? Theoretically yes it could. Realistically no it will not happen. Truth within the context of this debate is what the current interpretation of Constitutional 2nd amendment rights. No other truth, past, future or possibilities will help you out of Federal charges for possession of WMD. No matter how great of a history teacher you may be or insightful thinker you are. The courts will only recognize one definition of truth= what is the current interpretation of the law. That isall they wil or should consider. They may even show compassion for what they see as unjust law.
The courts will only recognize one definition of truth= what is the current interpretation of the law. .
I get where you are coming from too. My point is the courts can change the definition of WMD at will, or remove the M and ban any weapon they choose, it wont make it right. It could claim to change the truth that was in the constitution. However for the time it is allowed to remain law, it will be law and will carry punishment for not following, there is no doubt about that.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: OK, I have neen told a few times that I am the one who is wrong. That I need to go read something. That I need to get educated. OK, prove me wrong. I say we dont have the right to own OR possess OR use WMD (outside of military or some Government agency ). IF, you are so confident in YOUR personal interruption of the 2nd amendment, then put your reputation where your mouth is.
I'll just leave this here.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-23-2014).]
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing you?
What is your argument?
That my neighbor can't use my gun if I allow it?
Does the 2nd Amendment not apply to him also. Is he somehow different. He didn't steal my gun. No crime has been committed. Your Logic seems to be everything is a crime unless you state it isn't.
well, if you wanna get fussy - the 2nd doesnt even say you can fire them. only keep & bear them.
tho, maybe "bearing" them does include firing them - nut sure?
no, this is not "my logic", this is just reading what should be a simple pair of sentences, which so many seem to pull alot of extra crap with.
I am 100% for guns. I just want things to be above board, and not slinging BS., The 2nd is the crux of what most stand on, so, you should be made aware of just how little "the 2nd" actually says. It says criminals can have guns in jail. its says anyone can have nukes & anthrax. it says I can have my AIDS dart gun. some folk are of mind that is not such a good idea.
Yellowstone, you seem to hate God more than I hate drugs. I say this not out of disrespect, but because you bring realigion up in more threads than I bring up my hate for drugs.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-23-2014).]
well, if you wanna get fussy - the 2nd doesnt even say you can fire them. only keep & bear them.
tho, maybe "bearing" them does include firing them - nut sure?
no, this is not "my logic", this is just reading what should be a simple pair of sentences, which so many seem to pull alot of extra crap with.
I am 100% for guns. I just want things to be above board, and not slinging BS., The 2nd is the crux of what most stand on, so, you should be made aware of just how little "the 2nd" actually says. It says criminals can have guns in jail. its says anyone can have nukes & anthrax. it says I can have my AIDS dart gun. some folk are of mind that is not such a good idea.
And so there is exactly why we have amendments AND court interpretation. All kinds of crazy would happen if we did not have an official legally binding definition of the Constitution and amendments and other laws
well, if you wanna get fussy - the 2nd doesnt even say you can fire them. only keep & bear them.
tho, maybe "bearing" them does include firing them - nut sure?
no, this is not "my logic", this is just reading what should be a simple pair of sentences, which so many seem to pull alot of extra crap with.
I am 100% for guns. I just want things to be above board, and not slinging BS., The 2nd is the crux of what most stand on, so, you should be made aware of just how little "the 2nd" actually says. It says criminals can have guns in jail. its says anyone can have nukes & anthrax. it says I can have my AIDS dart gun. some folk are of mind that is not such a good idea.
It protects the rights assumed to be self evident at that time and those rights are easily extrapolated into todays standards. The public militia consisted of private citizens from the individuals to large groups so you may assume the arms to be beared be on par with what any individual soldier could bear. Given the writing of the architects one can discern that the reasons for the protections of certain rights was for defense against tyranny
There was no weapon in existence that a single man or soldier could use to indiscriminately kill millions of people. This type of killing was not known to them.
Any individual can choose to have any right they want. As a collective we have accepted into contract to mutually agree and protect one another in certain rights only though it states not limited too. The constitution won't protect them just because you think you should have them.
You can assume they would or wouldn't have provided protection for the individual to have Nukes. I am in the opinion they would not have allowed any provision for individuals to have Nukes/WMD (by our standards of today).
Not sure what you point is, unless you are pointing, as I have already that this is my opinion? An opinion by the way that happens to agree with current legal and official interpretation of 2nd amendment rights.
Yellowstone, you seem to hate God more than I hate drugs. I say this not out of disrespect, but because you bring realign up in more threads than I bring up my hate for drugs.
Well you both give off the impression that if one does not live like you then they are doing it all wrong.
well, if you wanna get fussy - the 2nd doesnt even say you can fire them. only keep & bear them.
tho, maybe "bearing" them does include firing them - nut sure?
no, this is not "my logic", this is just reading what should be a simple pair of sentences, which so many seem to pull alot of extra crap with.
I am 100% for guns. I just want things to be above board, and not slinging BS., The 2nd is the crux of what most stand on, so, you should be made aware of just how little "the 2nd" actually says. It says criminals can have guns in jail. its says anyone can have nukes & anthrax. it says I can have my AIDS dart gun. some folk are of mind that is not such a good idea.
Even if we dont want it ( for example i really dont want a nuclear device .. ) we have the right to have it. Now, if/how we use them could be a problem, but owning it is a right.
Just like owning a rock. Its not the rock that is the issue at hand, its how you use it.
Not sure what you point is, unless you are pointing, as I have already that this is my opinion? An opinion by the way that happens to agree with current legal and official interpretation of 2nd amendment rights.
Just because there is a law, does not make it constitutionally legal. Laws are struck down all the time, but they were still 'illegally' passed.
Well you both give off the impression that if one does not live like you then they are doing it all wrong.
Not at all my intentions. I have said before that I have to respect the rights of others to an opinion or I myself have no right to one. To disagree is human. How we deal with disagreement is a measure of maturity. As long as you use my standard of measurements
Just because there is a law, does not make it constitutionally legal. Laws are struck down all the time, but they were still 'illegally' passed.
We do not have a disagreement on this statement. Laws are not changed just because they are unconstitutional but many other reasons. Some reasons are political like legally murdering babies before they are born. Some are technical like braking up monopolies to protect consumers. And some are changed to accommodate inventions that are made after laws, FCC regulations. Bottom line right wrong or indifferent, as of many years ago we have not been able to own WMD. The interpretation of the Constitution and it's amendments supports and up holds this restriction.
Threats of murder (premeditated assassination) of political officials AND their innocent family members on a public car forum? Nice move genius.
You keep saying that these things can only by used for mass murder, but they can also be used to protect yourself.
Think this through for a second please.
The United States has nuclear weapons. They could easily be used to kill a LOT of people. However They are used as a deterrent, they keep people from attacking because we could use them.
So, having a nuclear warhead/serin gas/herpes is a useful device to use for protection.
By using your way of thinking, the US is an evil mass murdering nation because it has WMD's available. Also, all men are rapists, and all women are hookers.
You keep saying that these things can only by used for mass murder, but they can also be used to protect yourself.
Brad
More importantly and to the point of the amendment.... They can be used against a tyrant government, both as deterrent and offensive. Prevent them first, but fight them on their terms if necessary.
