|
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
Founding Fathers’ Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was… To Preserve Slavery? Posted by Nathaniel Downes Second_Amendment We’ve all heard the arguments from the gun manufacturers lobby: “The 2nd Amendment was about freedom!” “The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that men could stand against their government” or other similarly absurd thoughts. But, what did the Founding Fathers think of the 2nd Amendment? It turns out, thanks to research done by Thom Hartmann, the 2nd Amendment was about slavery. What is ignored in the NRA’s arguments is that, at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, the militia in the south was known by another name: the slave patrol, and virtually all men of age served in its ranks at one point or another. As far back as 1680 in Virginia, the militias were organized to prevent: “…the frequent meetings of considerable numbers of negroe slaves, under pretence of feasts and burialls is judged [to be] of dangerous consequence.” (sic) In other words, the Virginia Militia was tasked with breaking up slave rebellions by busting any slave who might be organizing one. It even gave ‘incentive’ to men to serve on the militia: any freed colored person (black, Native American, or any other), if caught fleeing by the Militiaman, would be turned over to them as property, enslaved. A very effective incentive in colonial Virginia. By 1755, the Militia was established not only as a foundation to enforce slavery in the south, but it was a structure which it could be expanded if need be. Countless records of captured free people of color, even people such as the Irish, were pressed as slaves under the system. With the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there was concern among slave holders that their militias, their slave patrols, would be usurped by the new federal government using the provisions outlined in Article 1, Section 8. Patrick Henry in particular was quite vocal on the subject, saying: Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. [Source] He also is quoted as saying: If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only, can call forth the militia. [Source] He was not alone either, with George Mason joining him in concern: The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them. [Source] In other words, the U.S. Congress could disarm the patrols needed to keep slaves in line, eliminating slavery with one bold and quick move overnight. The 2nd Amendment itself was purposefully designed to empower the states to manage and handle their slave patrols, their militias. Which is why when Thomas Jefferson had James Madison draft up the 2nd Amendment, he had the language changed, from this: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. To the language we know today: 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. [Source] A serious redesign, would you not say? The focus shift from a civil, non-conscripted force to a state-regulated entity which can be conscripted into service fit the needs of the slave holders. In a stroke of irony, when Abraham Lincoln did free the slaves, he used the very power which Patrick Henry and George Mason feared the government would, only at that time, by the Confederate states acting in revolt, they had abandoned their voting positions within the United States and therefore were unable to block the legislation. Their petty revolt resulted in their institution of slavery being wiped away. It still was a bloody civil war, but their “right to bear arms” destroyed what they had hoped to preserve. When people call themselves patriots, or say they’re standing for what the founding fathers stood for when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, they are, in fact, doing nothing of the sort. Unless, of course, they’re arguing for the right to press people into involuntary, lifetime-indentured servitude, passed from parent to child in perpetuity. Or perhaps, that was, in fact, the plan all along. http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
|
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w 'Addictinginfo.org' - you actually read such ****? And you whine about FOX? ~snerk~ Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
|
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On 1/17/13 11:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote: http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w 'Addictinginfo.org' - you actually read such ****? And you whine about FOX? ~snerk~ So, what in the article do you disagree with and why? Please give cite to counter any of the facts presented. Addictinginfo is just one of a number of sites that picked up the essay. Oh, and addictinginfo doesn't try to pass itself off as a news site, as fox does. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
In article ,
says... On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:57:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote: http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w 'Addictinginfo.org' - you actually read such ****? And you whine about FOX? ~snerk~ So, what in the article do you disagree with and why? Please give cite to counter any of the facts presented. I didn't see many "facts" presented, just opinions from Hartman. Have you ever seen his show? He is left of you. Again, please show what you disagree with and why. Please give cite to counter what you disagree with. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
In article ,
says... On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:03:17 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:57:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote: http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w 'Addictinginfo.org' - you actually read such ****? And you whine about FOX? ~snerk~ So, what in the article do you disagree with and why? Please give cite to counter any of the facts presented. I didn't see many "facts" presented, just opinions from Hartman. Have you ever seen his show? He is left of you. Again, please show what you disagree with and why. Please give cite to counter what you disagree with. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2...l_militia.html http://www.historyisfun.org/militia-...ionary-war.htm http://www.connecticutsar.org/articl...ts_militia.htm http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/walter....%20militia.pdf I'm sorry, how do those counter the facts previously given?? |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
In article ,
says... On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:14:43 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:03:17 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:57:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:41:26 -0500, ESAD wrote: http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w 'Addictinginfo.org' - you actually read such ****? And you whine about FOX? ~snerk~ So, what in the article do you disagree with and why? Please give cite to counter any of the facts presented. I didn't see many "facts" presented, just opinions from Hartman. Have you ever seen his show? He is left of you. Again, please show what you disagree with and why. Please give cite to counter what you disagree with. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2...l_militia.html http://www.historyisfun.org/militia-...ionary-war.htm http://www.connecticutsar.org/articl...ts_militia.htm http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/walter....%20militia.pdf I'm sorry, how do those counter the facts previously given?? None of them mention anything about militias chasing runaway slaves. There is a story or two about the groups that did chase runaway slaves but they don't say anything about militias. So.... let me get this straight, so in your eyes, that means that the facts given don't count????? Really? |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
ESAD wrote:
Founding Fathers’ Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was… To Preserve Slavery? Posted by Nathaniel Downes Second_Amendment We’ve all heard the arguments from the gun manufacturers lobby: “The 2nd Amendment was about freedom!” “The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that men could stand against their government” or other similarly absurd thoughts. But, what did the Founding Fathers think of the 2nd Amendment? It turns out, thanks to research done by Thom Hartmann, the 2nd Amendment was about slavery. snipped So sell your guns, pay your overdue taxes, and STFU, Krause. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On Jan 17, 8:41*am, ESAD wrote:
Founding Fathers Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was To Preserve Slavery? Posted by Nathaniel Downes Second_Amendment We ve all heard the arguments from the gun manufacturers lobby: The 2nd Amendment was about freedom! The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that men could stand against their government or other similarly absurd thoughts. But, what did the Founding Fathers think of the 2nd Amendment? It turns out, thanks to research done by Thom Hartmann, the 2nd Amendment was about slavery. What is ignored in the NRA s arguments is that, at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, the militia in the south was known by another name: the slave patrol, and virtually all men of age served in its ranks at one point or another. As far back as 1680 in Virginia, the militias were organized to prevent: the frequent meetings of considerable numbers of negroe slaves, under pretence of feasts and burialls is judged [to be] of dangerous consequence. (sic) In other words, the Virginia Militia was tasked with breaking up slave rebellions by busting any slave who might be organizing one. It even gave incentive to men to serve on the militia: any freed colored person (black, Native American, or any other), if caught fleeing by the Militiaman, would be turned over to them as property, enslaved. A very effective incentive in colonial Virginia. By 1755, the Militia was established not only as a foundation to enforce slavery in the south, but it was a structure which it could be expanded if need be. Countless records of captured free people of color, even people such as the Irish, were pressed as slaves under the system. With the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there was concern among slave holders that their militias, their slave patrols, would be usurped by the new federal government using the provisions outlined in Article 1, Section 8. Patrick Henry in particular was quite vocal on the subject, saying: * * *Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . * * *By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. [Source] He also is quoted as saying: * * *If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only, can call forth the militia. [Source] He was not alone either, with George Mason joining him in concern: * * *The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them. [Source] In other words, the U.S. Congress could disarm the patrols needed to keep slaves in line, eliminating slavery with one bold and quick move overnight. The 2nd Amendment itself was purposefully designed to empower the states to manage and handle their slave patrols, their militias. Which is why when Thomas Jefferson had James Madison draft up the 2nd Amendment, he had the language changed, from this: * * *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. To the language we know today: * * *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. [Source] A serious redesign, would you not say? The focus shift from a civil, non-conscripted force to a state-regulated entity which can be conscripted into service fit the needs of the slave holders. In a stroke of irony, when Abraham Lincoln did free the slaves, he used the very power which Patrick Henry and George Mason feared the government would, only at that time, by the Confederate states acting in revolt, they had abandoned their voting positions within the United States and therefore were unable to block the legislation. Their petty revolt resulted in their institution of slavery being wiped away. It still was a bloody civil war, but their right to bear arms destroyed what they had hoped to preserve. When people call themselves patriots, or say they re standing for what the founding fathers stood for when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, they are, in fact, doing nothing of the sort. Unless, of course, they re arguing for the right to press people into involuntary, lifetime-indentured servitude, passed from parent to child in perpetuity. Or perhaps, that was, in fact, the plan all along. http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w That's about as factual as that supposed article you read about the NRA pushing for silencers so that guns would be safer for kids. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On 1/25/2013 9:25 PM, Earl wrote:
ESAD wrote: Founding Fathers’ Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was… To Preserve Slavery? Posted by Nathaniel Downes Second_Amendment We’ve all heard the arguments from the gun manufacturers lobby: “The 2nd Amendment was about freedom!” “The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that men could stand against their government” or other similarly absurd thoughts. But, what did the Founding Fathers think of the 2nd Amendment? It turns out, thanks to research done by Thom Hartmann, the 2nd Amendment was about slavery. snipped So sell your guns, pay your overdue taxes, and STFU, Krause. Sage advice. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
In article bec3ee93-6e22-4e8a-969a-4166d61403a4
@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says... On Jan 17, 8:41*am, ESAD wrote: Founding Fathers Words Reveal 2nd Amendment Was To Preserve Slavery? Posted by Nathaniel Downes Second_Amendment We ve all heard the arguments from the gun manufacturers lobby: The 2nd Amendment was about freedom! The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that men could stand against their government or other similarly absurd thoughts. But, what did the Founding Fathers think of the 2nd Amendment? It turns out, thanks to research done by Thom Hartmann, the 2nd Amendment was about slavery. What is ignored in the NRA s arguments is that, at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, the militia in the south was known by another name: the slave patrol, and virtually all men of age served in its ranks at one point or another. As far back as 1680 in Virginia, the militias were organized to prevent: the frequent meetings of considerable numbers of negroe slaves, under pretence of feasts and burialls is judged [to be] of dangerous consequence. (sic) In other words, the Virginia Militia was tasked with breaking up slave rebellions by busting any slave who might be organizing one. It even gave incentive to men to serve on the militia: any freed colored person (black, Native American, or any other), if caught fleeing by the Militiaman, would be turned over to them as property, enslaved. A very effective incentive in colonial Virginia. By 1755, the Militia was established not only as a foundation to enforce slavery in the south, but it was a structure which it could be expanded if need be. Countless records of captured free people of color, even people such as the Irish, were pressed as slaves under the system. With the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there was concern among slave holders that their militias, their slave patrols, would be usurped by the new federal government using the provisions outlined in Article 1, Section 8. Patrick Henry in particular was quite vocal on the subject, saying: * * *Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . * * *By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. [Source] He also is quoted as saying: * * *If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only, can call forth the militia. [Source] He was not alone either, with George Mason joining him in concern: * * *The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them. [Source] In other words, the U.S. Congress could disarm the patrols needed to keep slaves in line, eliminating slavery with one bold and quick move overnight. The 2nd Amendment itself was purposefully designed to empower the states to manage and handle their slave patrols, their militias. Which is why when Thomas Jefferson had James Madison draft up the 2nd Amendment, he had the language changed, from this: * * *The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. To the language we know today: * * *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. [Source] A serious redesign, would you not say? The focus shift from a civil, non-conscripted force to a state-regulated entity which can be conscripted into service fit the needs of the slave holders. In a stroke of irony, when Abraham Lincoln did free the slaves, he used the very power which Patrick Henry and George Mason feared the government would, only at that time, by the Confederate states acting in revolt, they had abandoned their voting positions within the United States and therefore were unable to block the legislation. Their petty revolt resulted in their institution of slavery being wiped away. It still was a bloody civil war, but their right to bear arms destroyed what they had hoped to preserve. When people call themselves patriots, or say they re standing for what the founding fathers stood for when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, they are, in fact, doing nothing of the sort. Unless, of course, they re arguing for the right to press people into involuntary, lifetime-indentured servitude, passed from parent to child in perpetuity. Or perhaps, that was, in fact, the plan all along. http://tinyurl.com/bgc6y5w That's about as factual as that supposed article you read about the NRA pushing for silencers so that guns would be safer for kids. Do you mean this? http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/ |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
|
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
In article ,
says... On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you mean this? http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/ If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the terror. Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license.. see BATF Form . If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end. You're completely missing the point..... |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On 1/26/13 12:27 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you mean this? http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/ If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the terror. Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license.. see BATF Form . If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end. You're completely missing the point..... Obviously, NRA-approved suppressors are for the kids, because... When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it and when you start shooting up classrooms full of kids and teachers, no one will hear that, either, so the kids won't be upset by the sound of firearms going off and killing their friends and teachers. So, when you buy that suppressor, make sure it has the NRA Approved for Kids Seal. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
In article ,
says... On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:27:25 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you mean this? http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/ If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the terror. Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license.. see BATF Form . If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end. You're completely missing the point..... The only point I see is you hate the NRA. Really? You didn't see the part about the NRA wants silencers so allegedly the kids shooting guns don't get hearing problems? Do you not find the outrageousness in this?? It is interesting that the US is about the only country that treats suppressors more severely than the guns they go on. Yeah, every kid needs a good gun silencer..... |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:54:01 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you mean this? http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/ If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the terror. Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license.. see BATF Form . If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end. Sounds like you're confusing flash suppressor with silencer. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
|
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On 1/26/2013 3:48 PM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. Yeah, how do the kids sound when you are molesting them? |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
In article ,
says... On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. Hey, the little kid's ears won't hurt (according to the NRA) while they are being slaughtered. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On 1/26/13 3:58 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 1/26/2013 3:48 PM, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. Yeah, how do the kids sound when you are molesting them? That's your bag, not mine. Hell, you *look like* a child molester. Oh, when's the coming out party? |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
In article ,
says... On 1/26/2013 3:48 PM, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. Yeah, how do the kids sound when you are molesting them? Go teach your daughter more about "sucking dicks", asshole. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:37:30 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:23:20 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:54:01 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you mean this? http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/ If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the terror. Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license.. see BATF Form . If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end. Sounds like you're confusing flash suppressor with silencer. Not at all. Without actually fingering the guy I can say I have seen the PVC pipe trick on a bull barrel Ruger MK 1. It is an impressive reduction in report. The 2 liter trick is just anecdotal. I would call that a silencer as opposed to a flash suppressor, which is what's found on the M-16 for example. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On 1/26/13 4:44 PM, Salmonbait wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:37:30 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:23:20 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:54:01 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you mean this? http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/ If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the terror. Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license.. see BATF Form . If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end. Sounds like you're confusing flash suppressor with silencer. Not at all. Without actually fingering the guy I can say I have seen the PVC pipe trick on a bull barrel Ruger MK 1. It is an impressive reduction in report. The 2 liter trick is just anecdotal. I would call that a silencer as opposed to a flash suppressor, which is what's found on the M-16 for example. Salmonbait -- 'Ignorance'...the conservative answer to everything of importance! Suppressor can be used as a term to describe a device that minimizes sound or flash or both. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
ESAD wrote:
On 1/26/13 12:27 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you mean this? http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/ If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the terror. Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license.. see BATF Form . If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end. You're completely missing the point..... Obviously, NRA-approved suppressors are for the kids, because... When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it and when you start shooting up classrooms full of kids and teachers, no one will hear that, either, so the kids won't be upset by the sound of firearms going off and killing their friends and teachers. So, when you buy that suppressor, make sure it has the NRA Approved for Kids Seal. That's a dumb, but expected response from Harry the tax cheat. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
iBoaterer wrote:
Really? You didn't see the part about the NRA wants silencers so allegedly the kids shooting guns don't get hearing problems? Do you not find the outrageousness in this?? Please show us where you found this. It reeks of a tax-cheating Harrytale. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
|
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
ESAD wrote:
On 1/26/13 3:58 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 1/26/2013 3:48 PM, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. Yeah, how do the kids sound when you are molesting them? That's your bag, not mine. Hell, you *look like* a child molester. Oh, when's the coming out party? You don't *look like* a tax cheat, yet you are. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On Jan 26, 7:43*pm, Earl wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. I've seen some where all you can hear is the action of the rifle. That's where down loaded ammunition comes in. to take the ballistic down to a sub-sonic speed. Of course, you're limited on range, though |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On Jan 26, 3:44*pm, Salmonbait wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:37:30 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:23:20 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:54:01 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you mean this? http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/ If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the terror. Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license.. see BATF Form . If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end. Sounds like you're confusing flash suppressor with silencer. Not at all. Without actually fingering the guy I can say I have seen the PVC pipe trick on a bull barrel Ruger MK 1. It is an impressive reduction in report. The 2 liter trick is just anecdotal. I would call that a silencer as opposed to a flash suppressor, which is what's found on the M-16 for example. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! Like the cone on the end of a Lee Enfield "jungle carbine" It was there but didn't work very well. I think all it did was send the noise back to the enemy. http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/im..._carbine_9.jpg |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On Jan 26, 11:56*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:48:34 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. What do suppressors have to do with school shootings? NFA firearms have been involved in virtually zero crime. Not a thing! But you gotta admit the subject makes a great blabbing point when you can't find much else to argue about . |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On 1/27/13 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:48:34 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. What do suppressors have to do with school shootings? NFA firearms have been involved in virtually zero crime. The point was that with the NRA pushing/pimping the sale of suppressors, every thug will want one when he goes down to the neighborhood school and shoots it up. And I wasn't talking about "machine guns" or short-barrel shotguns. Note that I stated "when you mount one on your semi-auto firearm." You brought up the NFA listed weaponry, not me. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
In article ,
says... On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:48:34 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. What do suppressors have to do with school shootings? The NRA is supporting silencers as a way to ensure kid's hearing won't be compromised. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On 1/27/2013 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:48:34 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. What do suppressors have to do with school shootings? NFA firearms have been involved in virtually zero crime. It's the MO for the progressives.. Make everything about everything... Just like if a mass shooting with hand guns (like the first reports said, and all the facts point to), and make it about Long guns that were still in the trunk of the car:).. All because the pistol ban is coming later:O |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On 1/27/13 10:06 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 1/27/2013 12:56 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:48:34 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. What do suppressors have to do with school shootings? NFA firearms have been involved in virtually zero crime. It's the MO for the progressives.. Make everything about everything... Just like if a mass shooting with hand guns (like the first reports said, and all the facts point to), and make it about Long guns that were still in the trunk of the car:).. All because the pistol ban is coming later:O D'oh. You don't need a full auto firearm to "take advantage" of a suppressor, **** for brains, and, in fact, it wasn't the point here. The point was that the NRA is pimping for suppressor manufacturers, and it isn't a stretch to envision you or someone like you shooting your way into a school with a semi auto rifle and suppressor or a 9 mm and suppressor and killing your way through a classroom, making a lot less noise than you would with a non suppressed firearm. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
In article ,
says... On 1/27/13 10:06 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 1/27/2013 12:56 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:48:34 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. What do suppressors have to do with school shootings? NFA firearms have been involved in virtually zero crime. It's the MO for the progressives.. Make everything about everything... Just like if a mass shooting with hand guns (like the first reports said, and all the facts point to), and make it about Long guns that were still in the trunk of the car:).. All because the pistol ban is coming later:O D'oh. You don't need a full auto firearm to "take advantage" of a suppressor, **** for brains, and, in fact, it wasn't the point here. The point was that the NRA is pimping for suppressor manufacturers, and it isn't a stretch to envision you or someone like you shooting your way into a school with a semi auto rifle and suppressor or a 9 mm and suppressor and killing your way through a classroom, making a lot less noise than you would with a non suppressed firearm. I wonder if he is really that stupid or just playing that way. |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:45:05 -0500, Earl wrote:
ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 3:58 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 1/26/2013 3:48 PM, ESAD wrote: On 1/26/13 3:33 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:45:10 -0500, ESAD wrote: When you mount one on your semi-auto firearm, break into a school, and shoot the armed but incompetent "Scotty Guard," no one will hear it In spite of what you see in the movies, suppressed rifles are far from silent. They sound more like the impact wrench at the tire store than a BB gun. Well, that should make the sound of your schoolmates being slaughtered much more acceptable. Yeah, how do the kids sound when you are molesting them? That's your bag, not mine. Hell, you *look like* a child molester. Oh, when's the coming out party? You don't *look like* a tax cheat, yet you are. What? I've met him. He does. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 18:09:32 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:44*pm, Salmonbait wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:37:30 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:23:20 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:54:01 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:19:38 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: Do you mean this? http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sile...atest_big_lie/ If you are a terrorist, the sound of the gun is just part of the terror. Making a suppressor is so trivial that I doubt the law is that effective anyway. You can register one for $200 if legality is your thing and you are allowed to make your own without an FFL license.. see BATF Form . If you are into expediency the 2 liter bottle is a serviceable suppressor. Better is the 1.5" PVC pipe, stuffed with milk bottle tops and a little steel wool. on the muzzle end. Sounds like you're confusing flash suppressor with silencer. Not at all. Without actually fingering the guy I can say I have seen the PVC pipe trick on a bull barrel Ruger MK 1. It is an impressive reduction in report. The 2 liter trick is just anecdotal. I would call that a silencer as opposed to a flash suppressor, which is what's found on the M-16 for example. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! Like the cone on the end of a Lee Enfield "jungle carbine" It was there but didn't work very well. I think all it did was send the noise back to the enemy. http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/im..._carbine_9.jpg That cone was a flash suppressor, not a silencer. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! |
Interesting take on the history of the 2nd Amendment...
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:59:14 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:44:14 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:37:30 -0500, wrote: Without actually fingering the guy I can say I have seen the PVC pipe trick on a bull barrel Ruger MK 1. It is an impressive reduction in report. The 2 liter trick is just anecdotal. I would call that a silencer as opposed to a flash suppressor, which is what's found on the M-16 for example. You can call it anything you want but there is no such thing as a silencer.(no matter what BATF says) It is a suppressor. It only suppresses the report, it doesn't silence it. The little thingy on the end of an M-16 barrel, for example, is a 'flash suppressor' - not a 'sound suppressor' or 'silencer'. The conical thingy on the end of the Lee Enfield 'Jungle Carbine' is a 'flash suppressor', not a 'sound suppressor' or 'silencer'. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com