"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:10 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
Wilko
P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out
of
shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles
trying
to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade
lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated
weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid.
Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up
most of them before they could fire a shot,
Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force
and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have
access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of
the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private
ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where
the
bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system,
it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.
LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on
street
corners.
The concept is clearly and exactly what the Framers had in mind, if they
didn't have specific information on future weapons technology. They did
*understand* scientific advancement and new technology, and they wisely
decided that to link the RKBA to technology was a recipe for disaster
and
tyranny.
The presumptions of the Framers regarding "hoods and angry ex-husbands"
were
just as well thought out. They had "hoods and angry ex-husbands" back
then
too, and they (again) wisely realized that such people (and their ilk)
comprise a very, very small contingent of the population. They knew that
if
they infringed on the rights of the general public in order to try to
limit
access to arms by the minority of crooks in society, they would be
throwing
out the baby with the bath water.
Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nor
Safety."
Liberty is defended with arms, and the Framers trusted that a well-armed
citizenry was better prepared to deal with the occasional armed thug
than an
unarmed citizenry would be.
Wow. You aren't faking are you? You're a full on nut! Pleased to meet
you.
History is sometimes inconvenient for gun banners. I'm paraphrasing (and
quoting) those who concocted our system of government.
They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and
would
in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able
to
use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault.
Never
did the Framers intend that the citizenry be disarmed and that only the
police and military be armed. They explicitly and specifically
constructed
our system to prevent precisely that.
And the efficacy of their judgment that the citizenry can be trusted
with
arms is borne out by the experience of more than 40 states which now
permit
lawful concealed carry. In *every place* where concealed carry is
lawful,
violent crime rates drop, and there is no concomitant rise in illegal
firearms use. That is proof positive of the Framers judgment.
Holy sweet fancy moses.
Indeed.
The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn.
No, they were most emphatically not. In fact, in many of the Colonies,
male
citizens were *required* by ordinance.to bring their firearms and militia
kit to church on Sundays for inspection and militia drill after services.
Because they didn't have a massive amry, navy, air force, marines!
Are you so stupid that you can't see the difference between a sparse
population of people defending a huge amount of territory and the modern day
juggernaut that is the US armed forces?
There was no
armed forces.
Are you really this stupid? Of course there were armed forces. Ever hear
of
the "Minutemen?" Every hear of the Continental Army? How about George
Washington?
LOL. Yes, with his rowboat, no doubt outfitted with nuclear weapons.
There were no assault weapons.
The Brown Bess was the "assault weapon" of the time. Tempus fugit and
technology advances. That doesn't change the nature of the right.
Um. Indeed it does.
Being concerned that without a musket in every barn the US could not be
defended has little to do with the ability of some angry husband to take out
his wife and her family with an AK-47 he's purchased on the corner after
hearing about his pending divorce.
And there weren't more than
30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their
neighbours.
There still aren't. Most of the gun-related deaths in the US are a)
suicides
and b) criminal attacks. The incidence of accidental shootings is very
small
and getting smaller every year.
Wow, you must be so proud! The guns are mostly used for people shooting
themselves or deliberately shooting someone else! Great!
Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related
deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada.
Um. You mean we have more gun-related deaths in Britain, Australia, and
Canada?!?!?
Where'd you get that loony idea?
You really are a full on nut!
If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have
interpreted
that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple
clip
semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault
weapon
and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure they
would rethink the whole thing.
Fortunately you don't get to second guess them. And they were perfectly
aware of the potentials of firearms.
Actually, the constitution has undergone quite a lot of amendments, for
example, a black person is now consider equal to a white person in value. At
least on paper. The framers obviously had no idea what the USA of 2005 would
be like. They didn't know about nuclear weapons. Crack houses. Assault
weapons.
Another bit of misinformation you spout that needs debunking: No legal
semi-automatic firearm in the US can be "easily converted" to fully
automatic fire. In fact, one of the requirements of the BATFE regarding
semi-automatic firearms is that to be legal, it must NOT be "easily
convertible" to fully automatic fire.
Factually, any semi-automatic firearm, including shotguns, CAN be made to
fire more than one round per trigger pull, but doing so is a serious
federal
crime, and it's done quite infrequently. Moreover, in every mass killing
event in the US, no weapon used by an assailant was "fully automatic."
They
were all, at best, semi-automatic.
It's good to know (?) that it's not necessary to bother with the conversion
to fully automatic in order to commit a mass slaying.
Nor do people randomly shoot up McDonalds because the "lost their temper."
Mass killings are very rare, that's why they make the news. But the single
common factor in EVERY mass shooting, worldwide, is that the shooter was
the
ONLY PERSON with a gun. In almost all cases, had there been one or more
good
citizens who were lawfully armed, the mass killing likely would not have
occurred.
Ah yes, if only we all had a gun. Then every office argument, domestic
disagreement, incorrect tally on a grocery bill, bumper tap in a parking
lot, etc could easily turn into a bloodbath and we'd all be happy (?)
Total up all the Americans killed in every
war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths between
1979 and 1979.
Now total up the number of human beings killed by tyrants and murderous
thugs BECAUSE they were disarmed by their government, starting with the
Jews
of Germany circa 1939 and continuing right on down to Rawanda and beyond
and
you'll have hundreds of millions of times the number of US citizens killed
by firearms since 1776.
So your theory is that we simply need to arm every single person in the
world and we'll all be safer? You are not just a nut. You are a SCARY nut.
That's NOT what the framers had in mind.
Of course not. The Framers did not intend that people be killed with
firearms
Haaaaaaaalleeeeeeeloooooya. Halelloya. Hallellooooooo-ooooo-ooooo-ys!
but they DID recognize that taking the firearms out of the hands
of good, law-abiding citizens WOULD result in tyranny and wholesale
death...because that's exactly what happened to them...and the Irish, and
the Scots, and every other population of disarmed citizens on the planet.
Hm. Does the average Irish person wish they had more guns around? I think
they are pretty happy to be getting past the days when parts of Ireland were
best known as places to get shot.
They absolutely understood that bad people would use guns to kill good
people, and they knew that the only way for the good people to protect
themselves was to be armed.
You really have no clue about American history, do you?
Other than my university degree in History, not much. Apparently you learned
all your history from the NRA sponsored texts.