Posted on 12/04/2007 12:56:01 AM PST by neverdem
‘Trench Guns’ on the front in WWI. Troops did use sawed-off shotguns, when they made it to enemy trenches. A shot gun is a long gun, which is difficult to manage in the tight confines of a trench. In close quarters combat in a trench, accuracy wasn’t much of an issue, but handling, speed and agility sure were.
I didn’t know that. Is that the origin of the sawed off shotgun?
The author has made many mistakes in his article. FA are not illegal.
Go here http://www.brpguns.com/
Isn’t balance in gun control
A Winchester or a Colt in each hand?
If the court decides to rule that it is a “collective right”, rather than an “individual right”, that will be the fall of the American Republic.
And it will mean a huge number of dead folks.
Dead people who live on farms.
Dead women who live in cities but carry a gun in their purse just-in-case.
Dead cops.
Dead politicians.
Maybe even some dead judges.
Strive for balance, I could think of several things the rabid left could strive for balance with, and it is not written in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights in it’s entirety is balance. Against totalitarian leftists.
Even notice how all the totalitarians in the world are leftists?
If the court comes down on the pro-second amendment side, then we'll see the radical left re-invigorated, and it could mean additional support for the weak spots in Hillary's campaign, but not too much for Obama since he's already a radical leftist.
So a question hanging out there is, would we trade one term of Hillary as President, for a clear SCOTUS ruling on the second amendment that protects our RTKAB?
Summary...S.49 Title: A bill to protect firearm owners' constitutional rights, civil liberties, and rights to privacy.
Repeals certain recordkeeping requirements for the sale of ammunition (but retaining such requirements for armor-piercing ammunition).
Don't forget a good stance and hold.
While I like the author's ultimate conclusion, this is a rather poorly written article. I won't jump on all of the issues (I'll sum it up by saying there are a lot of internally contradictory and non-factual statements), but I will point out the quote above.
The author uses an analogy I've heard before about the danger of lead in pencils. The issue is of course that pencils don't contain any lead. The writing part of a pencil is graphite. Either the author is much more clever than I by using a double entendre (banning lead which isn't really lead) or, more likely, he's using a hackneyed cliche which really doesn't apply (if you have more than about a sixth grade education).
Thank God I’m out of that school on the 16th... I used to read crap like this all the time. I really think that UCONN intentionally makes peoples’ brains mush in order to not have anyone have an opinion on anything. There is no middle-of-the-road approach for gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment says what it says.
Crack
Whitey did it
It is never safe to give away any of our rights, why does everyone look at me (at work) like i am on crack when i say we should only be allowed one political speach per month, or any of the other parts of the bill of rights can only be used once per month. But they think its perfectly ok to tell me that I can only get one gun per month, if i register it, and its not too scary, or too powerfull, ect. ect. ect.
And you thought wrongly!
As for his 'strive for balance', I wonder if he feels about the 1st Amendment the same way - the one that protects his RIGHT to pen this nonsense without a gubmint license, registration, tracking, or 'prior approval'.
My guess is -- not.
Technically, he was charged with transporting it across state lines without a tax stamp and registration. Had he registered it and purchased a tax stamp, it would have been legal to own.
"The Supreme Court in 1939 was unaware of the use of 'Trench Guns' on the front in WWI."
Those were 20" pump action guns with a barrel shroud, sling swivels, and bayonet mount. Miller had a sawed-off double barreled shotgun, less than 18".
"The fact of the matter is, that the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment is not an indivdual right, but is a collective right. Not once."
They never addressed the issue of a collective right or an individual right. They were silent.
Hmmm, thanks for the info on WWI short-barreled shotguns. With a bayonet, wow. But that argues for the close quarter nature of the within the trenches warfare.
My point was mostly that the Supreme Court didn't have any evidence for the use of short-barreled shotguns in warfare, therefore it was not a militia weapon, therefore it didn't come under protection of the Second Amendment.
This implies that even under Miller, which the Liberals have mischaracterized for 60 years, would protect weapons used by the military. This is the opposite of the banning of 'assault weapons'. Millions and millions of AK and M-16 have been used by militaries, partisans, guerillas, militias and civilians around the world. It is exactly assault weapons that would get the greatest protection from the Second Amendment.
Rule 1: Liberals lie. Rule 2: When in doubt, read Rule 1.
I don’t know if that is the origin. I don’t know when shotguns were first invented. I do remember seeing a program on Pirate Tech, the weapons used by pirates in the golden age of piracy. They did use short-barreled muskets with shot. Pretty much for the same reason the trench fighters used them, for close quarter combat. Pirates used them when bording ships.
No, The National Firearms Act of 1934 only 'regulated' full auto firearms. with a 'tax stamp' (transfer fee) and in most states they were legal. It's still on a state by state case. IL finally outlawed them entirely in the mid 70's. So on the Fed level any law abiding citizen in can still apply for the Class 3 'tax stamp' but the hassle and cost to most isn't worth it even if your state allows them.
And aside, it took Congress until 1934 to pass 'The Act' as they always thought (correctly) that any restriction was unconstitutional. They finally figured they could do it through the Commerce Clause - which they still abuse to this day with unconstitutional laws like Federal Hate Crime Legislation. (take away Commerce Clause abuse and Congress can sit home for ten months of the year.)
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.