Posted on 12/04/2006 2:04:25 PM PST by neverdem
Thank you for taking the time to respond. :)
If the Second Amendment were a gun law, it sure isn't enforced. There ought to be a lot of legislators, cops and judges who should go to jail for violating it, but of course they're all on the "other team" and protect each other. This myth of separation of powers is just that, a myth.
For that matter you can make functional equivalents to LAWs & RPGs too. If you have the right tools and materials ( I wonder if that comes under the heading of model rocketry?)
Congress doesn't make the determination if the Court determins that the law is unconstitutional. Also there was evidence at the time that could have been presented to prove that shotguns under 18" had militia/military use. Also, it was not until the USSC made the determination that there was any clue that they would even use militia/military use as a factor for making the determination. The case was supposed to be about the constitutionality of the GCA of '38 not about the legality of the shotgun.
I searched expecting to find a military wavier. Instead I found that no member of the U.S. Army in Alaska may carry a concealed weapon on or off base by order of Major General Charles H. Jacoby Jr.
http://www.usarak.army.mil/policies/PUBS-ACROBAT/USARAK_Policies/CGCOFS%20POLICY%20STATEMENT%2020.pdf
Good thing I read further before replying to that post, I was going to bring up about that also. I would also point out that you can still buy derringers and ultra compact semi-autos (.22 & .25 calibers) that are no different than SNSs.
I'm guilty of not having read further, many times in the past, and will probably be so again. But I do try to avoid it!
The whole "SNS" terminology is just an attempt to generate an emotional reaction among the sheeple in an effort to infringe upon Second Amendment rights.
Thanks for the ping. I did not know this about Condi, and if it is possible it causes me to respect her all the more. I say "if possible" because I have always thought very highly of her as a gracious and skilled leader.
Ahh, thats harder. Compared to a directional mine, a rocket and a launcher are precision machinery...
Less than shotguns & rifles with barrels under 18" both had/have been used by the milary, police, government agents, etc. The blunderbus is one such form of a shotgun that was used by militaries. Sawed off shotguns were used during the civil war also.
But if you really want to crack those limousines :-)
Shorter barrel does not equate to less effective weapon, it depends on the situation. In WWI a shorter barrel is more effective than a long one when fighting inside the trenches.
In fact "When American troops were in the heat of the fighting in the summer of 1918, the German government sent a protest through a neutral agency to our Government asserting that our men were using shotguns against German troops in the trenches. The allegation was true; but our State Department replied that the use of such weapons was not forbidden by the Geneva Convention as the Germans had asserted.Manufactured primarily for the purpose of arming guards placed over German prisoners,these shotguns were undoubtedly in some instances carried into the actual fighting. The Ordnance Department procured some 30,000 to 40,000 shotguns of the short-barrel or sawed-off type, ordering these from the regular commercial manufacturers. The shell provided for these guns each contained a charge of nine heavy buckshot, a combination likely to have murderous effect in close fighting." Benedict Crowell, America's Munitions, 1917-1918; Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1919; pp. 185-86. Benedict Crowell was Assistant Secretary of War, Director of Munitions.
Don't we have Navy & Air Force bases there also? His order would not be in effect on them. Also, what about those that are discharged (medically or otherwise) and are still under the age of 21, they are still being barred by the state and his order would also not effect them.
Which is the reason we need to examine the problems with society today and fix it. Just getting rid of the gun control laws won't fix things. Part of the problem is parenting (or the lack there of) by some, but there are other issues that need to be addressed also.
Either that, or you could go by original intent. Clearly, there is no way the framers intended the second amendment to include weapons that did not yet exist, and had little to no similarity to weapons that existed at the time.
If I were to interpret the Constitution in the same was as you William Tell, we'd need to pass a Constitutional Amendment in order to stop someone from walking down the middle of a quiet street at 2am with a bullhorn, expressing his political views as loudly as the bullhorn would allow him to, because otherwise he would be protected by the 1st Amendment because he's engaging in "Free Speech."
That's an absured arguement, no doubt, but it's no less absured then the arguement you are attempting to make. Clearly, the Founders didn't intend the Second Amendment to apply to nuclear weapons, they didn't exist at the time, they bare no resemblance to what existed at the time, they would serve no purpose they could have envisioned at the time, and thus, by original intent, would not be included.
A sensible and reasonable position. I totally agree, that's the point I was trying to make.
>Dynamite and anti-tank rockets are very different things.<
Why? I can walk into Safeway and buy enough chemicals to level the building. Should you be prohibited from buying cleaners?
With a .50
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.