Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Kingruv · 01-11-2009, 09:53 PM

I don't mean to be a poop stirrer but it seems my jingling change I throw in sometimes does that so here it goes.
1. As to Obama wanting your guns in the shredder; I think in his idea of a more perfect world, there would not be "assault weapons" or any other type of weapon that could possibly take someone's life. Taking life is for the courts/state to decide.
So being busy with a lot of big box issues will leave him no time for anything other than rubber stamping whatever the socialized socialites on the Hill come up with at a time that will make him look good. There are enough anti-gun people on the Kennedy staff to handle this minor issue.
2. If you have trouble understanding the "whys" of the way gun control goes, you need to study the National Firearms Act ca. 1934
A lot of the thrust of the decisions of the Supreme Court over Miller vs United States dealt with a struggle over what weapons were considered to be a functional part of personal military arms as opposed to in modern parlance "squad or crew served" weapons.
The reason the definition of "well regulated militia" is attacked by gun control proponents is because if the meaning is changed to define militia as National Guard or State Guard, etc. then no personal attachment is left and the goverment is free to do as it pleases.
In the 30's the Roosevelt Administration's Justice Department formed the bill which became the NFA. They were keenly aware of the then current understanding of the 2nd Amendment and tried to steer clear of getting into court. However that is exactly what happened. The Supreme Court undertook to decide what constitutes weapons needed for the "Militia".
In point I will use Virginia as an example since it's Militia definition predates the Constituion, and still retains the primitive definition.
At the most basic level the consitution of the Commonwealth recognizes a regular militia and a irregular militia. (this is similar in Pennsylvania as I recall) these are distinct from the Military Forces of the Commonwealth but are subject under it in time of emergency. The regular militia is considered to be persons under arms within the jurisdiction of the adjutant general of Virginia and formed into companies for purpose of defense. The Irregular militia is comprised of all other citizens that are armed and within the same prescribed limits and jurisdiction but are basically a last line of defense. Sadly to say similar to the Home Guard in Britain and Germany during WWII. Of course we shipped rifles and handguns to England during the war for exactly that reason, they had been stripped of the right to possess arms for defense.
In like manner the "militia" was always understood to "comprise the body of the whole citizenry" "except a few public officials" according to George Mason. "Well regulated" meant to have arms reasonable to defend and repel.
3. In the Supreme Court findings one of the issues settled around handguns. Is a handgun a normal weapon needed for a well regulated militia? The finding was yes. Why? Because in discussion and research it was determined that provosts and NCO's had the need for handguns to enforce lawful orders, prevent desertion and restore lawful order if need be by summary execution on the field of battle. This had been shown time and again. Similar action related to the roll of shotguns in war and in companies both in use by guards and by military police function. Because of this limits on short barrel shotguns went forward because ones with 18 inch barrels and longer were the only ones "typically" deemed to have a regular purpose.
4. In basic, a weapon which could be used by one person went under the wire and larger weapons were allowed to be regulated.
As to "other weapons" in many places you won't find a restriction on flame-throwers in respect to firearms ( no pun intended)
This usually comes under other headings and local or state restrictions which cover them specifically.
5. One of the basic erosions that has fostered anti-liberty issues and militated against personal liberty as opposed to class or civil liberties is this; the rewriting of fundamental rules on WHO has the vote. This isn't a racial issue or religious issue or really even political issue, it is a power issue ( you may read this as a MONEY issue)
The vote I refer to is your Federal Senator, and he or she is indeed Federal. (This wasn't always so children)
Before the 17th amendment, the State goverments chose the Senators and were able to hold the Federal gov. in check to some degree. Because of Senate rules, it is the most entrenched body in Washington. There were no problems present then that the 17th amendment was supposedly meant to address that has actually been solved; there are a few it has brought up. (I have 2 possible solutions to this part of the problem but can't get enough helium to float lead, the only source of gas up here is hot air that erodes the ozone layer over the Beltway, it is unsafe and unsuitable for floating good ideas)
6. There are psychological implications to gun-control that serves the powers that be, better as a fight than as a win/lose battle.
7. The NRA isn't the only organization up here that generates millions of dollars pertaining to gun control issues.
8. Currently gun owners have more to worry about from their own statehouses than from the Whitehouse.

If I have offended anyone please let me know now. I am bending over to feed the troll, so I am presenting the perfect target for punts, kicks or darts.

01-11-2009, 09:53 PM	#365 (permalink)
Kingruv Upright Location: NoVa	I don't mean to be a poop stirrer but it seems my jingling change I throw in sometimes does that so here it goes. 1. As to Obama wanting your guns in the shredder; I think in his idea of a more perfect world, there would not be "assault weapons" or any other type of weapon that could possibly take someone's life. Taking life is for the courts/state to decide. So being busy with a lot of big box issues will leave him no time for anything other than rubber stamping whatever the socialized socialites on the Hill come up with at a time that will make him look good. There are enough anti-gun people on the Kennedy staff to handle this minor issue. 2. If you have trouble understanding the "whys" of the way gun control goes, you need to study the National Firearms Act ca. 1934 A lot of the thrust of the decisions of the Supreme Court over Miller vs United States dealt with a struggle over what weapons were considered to be a functional part of personal military arms as opposed to in modern parlance "squad or crew served" weapons. The reason the definition of "well regulated militia" is attacked by gun control proponents is because if the meaning is changed to define militia as National Guard or State Guard, etc. then no personal attachment is left and the goverment is free to do as it pleases. In the 30's the Roosevelt Administration's Justice Department formed the bill which became the NFA. They were keenly aware of the then current understanding of the 2nd Amendment and tried to steer clear of getting into court. However that is exactly what happened. The Supreme Court undertook to decide what constitutes weapons needed for the "Militia". In point I will use Virginia as an example since it's Militia definition predates the Constituion, and still retains the primitive definition. At the most basic level the consitution of the Commonwealth recognizes a regular militia and a irregular militia. (this is similar in Pennsylvania as I recall) these are distinct from the Military Forces of the Commonwealth but are subject under it in time of emergency. The regular militia is considered to be persons under arms within the jurisdiction of the adjutant general of Virginia and formed into companies for purpose of defense. The Irregular militia is comprised of all other citizens that are armed and within the same prescribed limits and jurisdiction but are basically a last line of defense. Sadly to say similar to the Home Guard in Britain and Germany during WWII. Of course we shipped rifles and handguns to England during the war for exactly that reason, they had been stripped of the right to possess arms for defense. In like manner the "militia" was always understood to "comprise the body of the whole citizenry" "except a few public officials" according to George Mason. "Well regulated" meant to have arms reasonable to defend and repel. 3. In the Supreme Court findings one of the issues settled around handguns. Is a handgun a normal weapon needed for a well regulated militia? The finding was yes. Why? Because in discussion and research it was determined that provosts and NCO's had the need for handguns to enforce lawful orders, prevent desertion and restore lawful order if need be by summary execution on the field of battle. This had been shown time and again. Similar action related to the roll of shotguns in war and in companies both in use by guards and by military police function. Because of this limits on short barrel shotguns went forward because ones with 18 inch barrels and longer were the only ones "typically" deemed to have a regular purpose. 4. In basic, a weapon which could be used by one person went under the wire and larger weapons were allowed to be regulated. As to "other weapons" in many places you won't find a restriction on flame-throwers in respect to firearms ( no pun intended) This usually comes under other headings and local or state restrictions which cover them specifically. 5. One of the basic erosions that has fostered anti-liberty issues and militated against personal liberty as opposed to class or civil liberties is this; the rewriting of fundamental rules on WHO has the vote. This isn't a racial issue or religious issue or really even political issue, it is a power issue ( you may read this as a MONEY issue) The vote I refer to is your Federal Senator, and he or she is indeed Federal. (This wasn't always so children) Before the 17th amendment, the State goverments chose the Senators and were able to hold the Federal gov. in check to some degree. Because of Senate rules, it is the most entrenched body in Washington. There were no problems present then that the 17th amendment was supposedly meant to address that has actually been solved; there are a few it has brought up. (I have 2 possible solutions to this part of the problem but can't get enough helium to float lead, the only source of gas up here is hot air that erodes the ozone layer over the Beltway, it is unsafe and unsuitable for floating good ideas) 6. There are psychological implications to gun-control that serves the powers that be, better as a fight than as a win/lose battle. 7. The NRA isn't the only organization up here that generates millions of dollars pertaining to gun control issues. 8. Currently gun owners have more to worry about from their own statehouses than from the Whitehouse. If I have offended anyone please let me know now. I am bending over to feed the troll, so I am presenting the perfect target for punts, kicks or darts.