14 arrested in undercover federal probe of Nevada gun shows

Las Vegas SUN ^ | May 21, 2004 | ASSOCIATED PRESS

[tpaine]

To: Col Sanders; Living Stone

I must respectfuly disagree with you both in the case of a business open to the public. You can't deny a whole class of peoples civil rights, whether it's a sign saying "we don't serve negroes", or a sign saying "we don't serve gun carriers".
TERMINATTOR

______________________________________

-- property which you have bought and paid for should be yours to use in any way which you see fit, with very few exceptions.

117 -L Stone-

______________________________________


We have a right to bear arms.

Do you have the freedom to search everyone you invite onto your property or into your establishment for hidden 'arms'?

Indeed, free people & free markets have a way of sorting such things out on their own, and the 'safe at any price' crowd will always lose.

[tpaine]

A silencer/flash suppressor device could be very useful in concealing your position from an intruder in the dark. -- Personally, I'd rather have a very big & loud shotgun, but feel free to choose your weapon.

-- That's the american way, imo. - Can you agree?

[TERMINATTOR]

Isn't it more important to be free than 'safe'?

I think the guys who wrote the BOR recognized the best way to be safe (secure) AND free, was to be well armed and equiped (well regulated), against all threats. If I had to choose I'd take free But we really don't have to choose one over the other when we can have BOTH.

"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." -- Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

[supercat]

Since those wise men who wrote the Constitution could not have forseen the development of weapons of mass destruction, they made no provision for dealing with them.

First of all, the Second Amendment doesn't cover everything that could conceivably be used as a weapon; if it did, the federal government would be unable to impose any excise taxes or restrictions on much of anything. Rather, the Second Amendment covers items which by their nature would be suitable for use as arms in a well-functioning group of armed citizens. Since I don't think nuclear weapons would be suitable for use in such a context, the Second Amendment probably doesn't apply to them.

As for things like miniguns, if they are deemed to be such a public menace that they must be outlawed, the proper approach--as for anything else the Founding Fathers failed to see--would be to amend the Constitution to correct for the Founding Father's lack of vision:

• The rest of this Constitution and amendments notwithstanding, Congress shall have the authority to place whatever restrictions it sees fit on large-caliber repeating firearms that can, or can be adapted to be able to, in the course of one minute, fire more than 1,200 separately-launched projectiles each with a diameter of 0.5" (1.27cm) or greater.
• No weapon which would not be forbidden under this section under the definitions of "inch", "cm", "diameter", or "minute" which were in common usage when this amendment was enacted, may be forbidden as a consequence of changing definitions of such terms

If such an amendment were proposed, I should see no reason it wouldn't pass, except that anyone ratifying it would thereby acknowledge that the government did not have the ability to place arbitrary restrictions on firearms without such an amendment.

[TERMINATTOR]

You're headed down a slipery slope, if you let gov regulate what's "reasonable". Parity, and beyond is the answer. Yes we need nukes, and every other terrible implement of the soldier!

On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'

More On nuclear weapons and the 'well-regulated militia'

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tench Coxe; Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

Molon Labe!

[LibTeeth]

Re:"Please tell me how a silencer/supressor makes you more able to defend yourself?"

By protecting one's eyesight from muzzle flash, and one's ears from muzzle blast, someone protecting the door of their saferoom or entire house during a multiple assailant home invasion is better able to maintain an effective defense. This is just one reason why entry teams like suppressed arms (not every raid is a meth lab with flammable fumes). The fact that our law enforcement community finds utility in such devices, where they are not death squads, but are carrying arms for their defense, shows that those who find themselves in harms way appreciate putting a muffler on a noisy tool. A quiet first shot also reduces the mad-minute effect of everyone just firing blindly (a great example of that is the Waco raid video. No one knows who shot first, who gave the order, or what the signal was).

Hearing protection inhibits communication with friendlies and detection of assailants sneaking about. A good compromise is amplified earmuffs and an effective flash suppressor such as the Vortex design, but the elitists don't want common serfs to have flash suppressors either. Grabbing a pair of electronic muffs suppresses everyone's gunfire and amplifies even footfalls on carpet, but sound location is poor, muffs take time, can be knocked off, and batteries can die at the moment of need. On the other hand, most muzzle devices make the weapon envelope bigger and muzzle heavy.

In some European countires, suppressors are required and are considered neighborly.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Phew!! I'm so glad the feds were here harrassing citizens that, by their own admission, are not terrorists or gang members. Their work here is so much more worthwhile than infiltrating mosques being used as al-Qaeda recruitment centers and monitoring muslim prison chaplains to catch them recruiting for al-Qaeda.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

My question is: for the pieces of property seized, what specifically made them illegal? And blasting caps and detonating cord are explosives? I noticed that they didn't seize any plastique or sticks of dynamite. What's next, arresting me for having the propane bottle that came with my barbeque grill?

[Euro-American Scum]

Bump for future reference.

[Southack]

"Okay, I'll play. Name one gun law that is NOT an infringement of the Second Amendment."

Well, I'm fond of the federal and state gun control laws that say that felons can't have firearms while incarcerated, for one.