Posted on 02/25/2008 3:21:43 PM PST by kellynla
Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Court rules in the D.C. gun ban case that the right to keep and bear arms protects only state-run militias like the National Guard, then the federal government will have breached Montana's statehood contract.
Nobody is raising flags for the Republic of Montana, but nobody is kidding, either. So far, 39 elected Montana officials have signed a resolution declaring that a court ruling of the Second Amendment is a right of states and not of individuals would violate Montana's compact.
"The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract," Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a Feb. 15 letter to The Washington Times.
The resolution also was signed by Rep. Denny Rehberg, Montana's lone Republican congressman, and state Sen. Roy Brown, who is running to unseat Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.
The dispute goes back more than a century. Back in 1889, the settlers of the Montana territory struck a deal with the federal government: They agreed to join the union, and the government agreed that individuals had the right to bear arms.
That has worked fine for the past 118 years, but the Supreme Court is expected next month to hear oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller, the appeal of a federal court decision striking down the District's gun-ownership ban on Second Amendment grounds.
The high court has not issued a broad ruling on Second Amendment law in almost 70 years, including the key question of whether it provides an individual right, like speech and jury trial, or a "collective right" held by state governments.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
>Tell ya what, if there’s a war like in the movie “red dawn”, I’ll give you my old mauser with bayonet, and you can go capture some machineguns with it. I’ll cover you from a distance with my bushmaster.<
For an operation such as you describe I would prefer a .22 or maybe a .22 Mag. Much easier to silence than your old mauser.
>If you’re carrying a stupid old 303, what are the odds, you think, that one of the others might have a few of those 303s in their pocket?<
Have you ever thought to stock up on powder, primers and few thousand bullets or maybe just a bullet mold. An old car battery will turn out about 100 bullets for you when it is melted down.
You can’t make lead bullets go faster than about 1000 ft/sec or you have serious problems. THey have to be copper jacketed. THerefore, your idea is a pretty dumb one. Besides, I think you’d find it pretty hard to come up with a .311 inch diameter bullet mold.
A subsonic.22 will kill you from 50 feet with absolutely no problems and you are worried about a 150 grain bullet not killing a man?
Where is your head these days?
This is what you are referring to and here is the correction tips.
Low Pressure & High Velocity with Cast Bullets
http://www.jesseshunting.com/articles/guns/category16/9.html
ONe thing I dispute in that article is when he states that it was commonly accepted that 2000 ft/s was considered the upper limit. It seems to me that 1000 ft/s was considered the upper limit. I base this on the fact that 22 rimfire and 38 special ammo that went much beyond 1000 ft/s had copper plated lead bullets. Go a little faster than than that and you get the thin jacketed bullets such as the 22 magnum. Then finally, the full metal jacket bullets for full blown modern rifle speeds. I'm aware that there are guys making HARDcast bullets for 44 magnums that go a bit faster than 1000 ft/sec, but I consider that a special case. It's not ordinary lead and these guys doing it are not your typical dimbulbs either. But the idea that it's pressure, not speed, that limits cast lead use is intriguing. I'd never heard this claim before.
As for you post just before this one that I'm responding to...a bow and arrow is slower yet and still deadly, but I wouldm’t call that a good substitute for a modern military rifle. Nor would I call subsonic ammo a sensible substitute.
The weapon that you can practice with and polish your skills is the weapon for you. Not something that kicks like an enraged mule limiting you to four shots before your wrist or shoulder swells up and paralyzes you.
What I mean is if you are an old coot with arthritis then it's going to take you a bit longer to grab that 12 guage out of the corner, hoist it up to your shoulder, point and fire than it is for you to slip the revolver out of your belt and squeeze off six well placed rounds. Use what you are best with.
Now if your hearing has gone to hell and your dog is as old and decrepit as you are then for Pete's sake get an electronic alarm system that has motion detectors with all the latest cameras and automatic lighting system.
Odds are with that system you'll never have an actual intruder.
If you are arming for a when the shtf situation you are going to need more people for 24 hour protection. Yup, you'll be pulling guard duty if you are serious about staying alive. If I don't have any weapons and I see that you do, you can bet I am going to want yours. A few days of watching you and you can bet that one morning you will wake up and everything you have will be gone or perhaps you'll be dead and I'll have taken over your location. Won't be very difficult to sneak up on a man who is sleeping on a windy night and clean him out or club him with a rock
>Nor would I call subsonic ammo a sensible substitute.<
or very quietly put a tiny piece of lead behind his ear.
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.