Oh, no problem as long as it's cool and they're not moving around much.
You stay up there on the bank where its safe, by those culverts, behind that big green log....
<img src="
Posted on 10/23/2003 5:17:58 PM PDT by TnGOP
No. "Basketball Diaries".
Yes, its a sad story of the evil spiral of depravity brought upon us by the Satanic marketing of demonic guns by the decadent gun manufacturers. (/sarcasm)
BTW, if these are minors possessing firearms, where is the obligatory, "Adult Supervision". The 2nd. Amendment does not apply to children.
Yes!
Well then, neither does the 5th. A few hours of partial drowning, some interrogation with a blowtorch and maybe an enucleation or two, and we'll have confessions in no time!
-archy-/-
Oh, no problem as long as it's cool and they're not moving around much.
You stay up there on the bank where its safe, by those culverts, behind that big green log....
<img src="
Noooo. I didn't say that. I only said the 2nd Amendment. You are the one that extrapolated what I posted beyond what I actually wrote and meant. This is similar to the Brady Bunch extrapolating the 2nd. Amendment to imply that those of us in favor of its "individual" interpretation, also want it to mean we can keep M-60's and RPG's in our homes. N'est ce pas?
Now that you mention it, I believe you to be a gentleman of such sterling character, that you are not, at the present time, in desperate need of the protections afforded a person by the 5th. Amendment. Am I correct? Or are you about to be arrested for something. There, you see, children are not in need of their 4th., 5th., 6th and 8th. Amendments unless they have been arrested or convicted. Even then, the exercise of a childs rights will rest with the parents, unless a court appoints a guardian.
The above is one of my pet peeves:
The ACLU has actually convinced our society that children have "Constitutional" rights and are a "Protected Class" at the same time. The two positions conflict and harm both children, parents and society. Should the two minor youths in the story above be charged with a crime, they have through their parents, full Constitutional protections afforded any criminal suspect. If they (or any minor child) commit no crime, no rights are immediately necessary.
However, as children, they are a protected class and as such are deserving of food, shelter, clothing, health care, education and physical protection until they reach adulthood. At which time, they are considered mature and in full possession of their Natural and Constitutional rights, including the 2nd. Amendment.
The intentional blurring of these distinctions between childhood and adulthood, IMHO, were complicit in the Columbine shootings. If children have absolute 1st. Amendment rights to violent graphic influences, then they do, as you intimate above, also have 2nd Amendment rights. At what age shall they be permitted to purchase a .357 Magnum? 15? 13? 12?
It is worth considering. Regards, Buck.
Noooo. I didn't say that. I only said the 2nd Amendment. You are the one that extrapolated what I posted beyond what I actually wrote and meant. This is similar to the Brady Bunch extrapolating the 2nd. Amendment to imply that those of us in favor of its "individual" interpretation, also want it to mean we can keep M-60's and RPG's in our homes. N'est ce pas?
Well, I'm not certain to what extent founding father Henry Knox, an amateur artillerist who collected and studied cannon would have agreed with you about his not being fit to keep and maintain usable RPGs or recoilless rifles were he around today would have agreed with you. Or the citizenry of the De Witt Colony of Texas so certain of their need for a light cannon for defense from marauding Indian gangs that once they'd finagled a light piece from the Mexican government, they hoisted a depiction of it on a banner with the words *Come and Take It* inscribed thereon, making it clear that it was not only aboriginal predators who they viewed as a threat to their lives. I reckon nowadays, that'd be again, a jeep-mounted recoilless or possibly a light mortar.
So long as such folks are my neighbors I don't care what hardware they use and maintain, from single shot muzzleloaders on up to- and including nukes- so long as they don't misuse them. And if they do, the result is just as lethal no matter which end of that spectrum the tool chosen comes for, though it may make for more spectacular results. But I certainly prefer my own MG34 light machinegun to the M60 *pig* of the Vietnam era, with which I'm also more than slightly acquainted with, and with my Karl Gustav 84mm M2 recoilless and 20mm Lahti L/39 antitank gun over the less versatile and shorter ranged- though lighter- RPGs.
Now that you mention it, I believe you to be a gentleman of such sterling character, that you are not, at the present time, in desperate need of the protections afforded a person by the 5th. Amendment. Am I correct? Or are you about to be arrested for something.
It's always possible; and I am a likely witness in a 165 million dollar libel suit in which a drug dealer contributor to Al Gore's presidential and previous campaigns took exception to being so named. Since a federal grand jury looking into related matters has since jailed numerous members of the Memphis Police Department's Property Room Division, probed the operations of the local Chief Medical Examiner to the extent that his office is effectively embargoed from testimony in present criminal cases, and the director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation has announced his resignation, the possibility of a police frame-up or murder attempt against me remains a very possible one. And the Fifth might provide at least a temporary shield against such attempts, though the Second is probable more of a deterrent.
There, you see, children are not in need of their 4th., 5th., 6th and 8th. Amendments unless they have been arrested or convicted. Even then, the exercise of a childs rights will rest with the parents, unless a court appoints a guardian.
Hardly so: the real protection from the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th derives simply from the fact that they are there and their shield does apply to all, child or adult. And to deprive children of their protections under the 4/5/6/or 8th amendments serves to make them targets of such abuse as certainly as hanging signs on the local citizens that they're unfit to use their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves does in mugger/carjacker territory, and helps such crimes thrive.
The above is one of my pet peeves:
Well then, feed and water it frequently, and let it sleep in the house with you, if you wish. But don't let it paw visitors, bay at the moon, or shed on your sofe.
The ACLU has actually convinced our society that children have "Constitutional" rights and are a "Protected Class" at the same time. The two positions conflict and harm both children, parents and society. Should the two minor youths in the story above be charged with a crime, they have through their parents, full Constitutional protections afforded any criminal suspect. If they (or any minor child) commit no crime, no rights are immediately necessary.
Their *full Constitutional protections* include being taken into custody by order of state Children and Family Services personnel without any parental notification, detention without bond or legal representation, and denial of any admission as to whether they're in DCFS custody on grounds of *juvenile confidentiality. And of course, they can face capital punishment for certain crimes at varying ages in differing states, as low as 13 in at least a couple. Oh, and their First Amendment rights to religious practice can be ignored as *dangerous superstitions* as well.
However, as children, they are a protected class and as such are deserving of food, shelter, clothing, health care, education and physical protection until they reach adulthood. At which time, they are considered mature and in full possession of their Natural and Constitutional rights, including the 2nd. Amendment.
If you mean when they reach voting age and that for military service, 18, seventeen in some circumstances, wrong again. Their supposed Second Amendment right is denied by federal restriction until age 21, and beyond that in some jurisdictions.
The intentional blurring of these distinctions between childhood and adulthood, IMHO, were complicit in the Columbine shootings. If children have absolute 1st. Amendment rights to violent graphic influences, then they do, as you intimate above, also have 2nd Amendment rights. At what age shall they be permitted to purchase a .357 Magnum? 15? 13? 12?
Not just purchase, but purchase, cary, and defend themselves and others with it, certainly with the same duties and obligations of any other citizen. But of course those restricting such rights to those over 21 [or other more advanced age] do so in part because they find it convenient to prey on teen-aged victims, particularly young girls relatively incapable of fighting back.
It is worth considering. Regards, Buck.
Just so. I considered it many times at age 18, from the driver's or gunners seat [I didn't get a tank commander's job until I had reached age 19] of an M48 tank, preparing to kill people who wore uniforms of a different colour than mine. The differences I have with others who would dent full citizenship to others now in my position than are more profound than such sartorial contrasts.
Also worth considering: as a reserve officer, my CAPSTONE assignment in the event of a national mobilization is to report to a military mobilization and training command where I'll be the headquarters S3 [Operations and Training ] officer making it possible for us to have an initial brigade's worth on newly-made cannon fodder, followed by an additional two divisions worth [around 50K, total] within 6 months. Most of those would be young 18-year old conscripts, who would find their activities far more limited than the constitution generally provides, and if things ever get to that point, it's reasonable to expect that some of them are going to be dying in wholesale numbers. They will not be at all happy with those who have placed them in such a position, particularly in that they have limited voices as to having any say about it themselves. And count on the ones who live looking to settle a score or two afterward for those who did not, presuming, of course, that they're victorious or can at least purchase a stalemate with their lives..
Count on this too: I'll be pleased to assist them in every way I can.
-archy-/-
Sure. Unless, of course, you're the one running the kid as an agent provocateur in the first place, having him make the film of the *trench coat mafia* and setting up a couple of that group's affiliates to be supplied with weapons from the son af a Colorado state Handgun Control Inc. leader just at the right time to influence critical legislation.
The same fed psycchologist, BTW, responsible for dealing with the *Freemen* standoff in Montana. And the FBI supplied one of the SWAT teams that *cleared the school* after Kleybold and Harris had killed themselves, firing into rooms occupied by students and teachers and letting the wounded bleed to death.
-archy-/-
Foreign
Domestic
I think a Heavy Davy Crockett would be just the ticket for some aborigines.
I was issued my fully automatic M-14 (the last butt-stroker) when I was 17. Ah, the simple joys of youth!
There's a dandy training film of a 3-man M28 Davy Crockett jeep-mounted recoilless crew driving up to a firing position, aiming the weapon, then firing it remotely from a fighting position near the vehicle, probably from the 1962 *Ivy Flats* live fire tests. Maximum range of the M28 *Light* Launcher was 1.24 miles, and the M29 *Heavy* Launcher's maximum range was 2.5 miles- bothin the lethal range of radiation effects if the variable yield warhead was set toi maximum and the timer on the warhead set for the minimum distance for detonation from the vehicle- the result was a radiation exposure of over 1000 REM. The next test launch used a heavier M113 tracked armored personnel carrier as the launch vehicle....
When the nuclear warhead detonates, the blast reaches their position, and the jeep goes flying. Around 1965, Engineer AVLB *scissors bridge* tank chassis carriers were modified to accept the recoilless mount from the Davy Crockett jeeps, ideal since they were both a solid vehicle, derived from the M48 tank chassis, and also the vehicle used to emplace Atomic Demolition Munitions- [so-called *suitcase nukes,* though they were actually about the size of an oil drum] operated by the Combat Engineer demolition specialist NCOs trained to employ the SADMs.
I was 18 when I got my first M14, in May of 1966, then by July traded it in for a tanker's M3 *greasegun* submachinegun. Two months later, I was off to my first line company assignment, where I'd be a loader on a brand-new, state-of-the-art M60A1 for almost a month before being moved to the driver's seat, then to the gunner's. Though I've never buttstroked anyone with an M14 or M3 greasegun, I have once done so with an M24 bolt-action sniper weapons system, a terrible misuse of a fine tool. And there was a tanker in one outfit to which I was assigned who beat at least one enemy soldier to death with an M3 greasegun after it ran empty. He got the Medal of Honor for his actions that included that little stunt....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.