angelofdeath

"And as far as domestic spying is concerned, I'll say the same thing I wrote in the other thread about it. Right after 9-11 everyone was furious that the government hadn't done enough to prevent it. If they had done something, it would have been technically considered domestic spying since the hi-jackers were here legally." well put.

destroyed it. you left out, invaded a state, put it under martial law, and arrested secessionists and threw out habeus corpus. (maryland) and people think bush just brought it all about.

the framers of this country would consider our foreign policy imperialist. and considered revolution and removal of the current government with a proper government to be normal activity for citizens. note that our country was born out of revolution from a tyrant who taxed our stamps and tea. seriously, by todays standards, they were isolationist, protectionist, super pro liberty. as for defense of the homeland. their foreign policy of "friendship and commerce will all nation, entangling alliances with none" and "we dont go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." went well with what they thought was proper homeland defense, militia, the people. after our early wars, our standing armies were disbanded pretty quick. most of these old dudes feared a standing army could easily topple the people and didnt want a anti liberty government to take over and use the standing army on the people. (think police state.) it is not possible in this day and place in the situations we are in to abolish our standing army, but im just stating what the guys who founded our government believed. a simple explanation of what these dudes thought... just read my signature. they wanted checks and balances, and the final checks were nullification, secession and over throwing the government. we know the first 2 were made "illegal" from the civil war.

how ironic, i was browsing one of my favorite daily updated sites and this was on the front page of lewrockwell.com 'The Unlimited Power of the Sword' by Vin Suprynowicz A couple of loyal readers asked me, in response to my recent evisceration of the discredited "militia clause" argument, "But Vin, do you think the Founders would have written the Second Amendment that way if they'd known we'd have Uzis"? Leaving aside the fact that it takes extraordinary dedication and commitment (and loot) for a "civilian" of average means to legally acquire a fully automatic Israeli machine pistol in America today, the answer is, "Yes." The Founders had every opportunity to add "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time" – all of which were well-known by 1787. They did not. Quite to the contrary, Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, wrote in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788: "Their swords, and every other terrible instrument 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 the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Note "unlimited." Note "every terrible instrument." Under the form of government that we're told Americans still enjoy, the government can exercise only those powers that are delegated to it by the people. You cannot delegate a right or power that you do not already possess. Therefore, if members of the U.S. Army have legitimate authority to "keep and bear" Uzis and nuclear weapons, they can only have gotten that right from the individual Americans who delegated it to them. It doesn't matter whether you "think this is a good idea." If you want to contend we now have a form of government in which our rulers start with all rights and powers, and allow to the peasantry only those lesser included liberties as they see fit, say so out loud now, please. And tell me when the original Constitution was voided, and by what legal process. Nor do we usually or necessarily abdicate a right when we delegate it: We delegate to police the duty to chase down fleeing felons, but each citizen retains the right to go ahead and do this himself if circumstances dictate. Similarly, the Second and 14th amendments guarantee that we have not given up our private, individual right to keep and bear howitzers and really big machine guns just because we have also delegated this right to the Army. Of particular interest is the fact that several of my questioners work in the newspaper business. How would they respond, I wonder, to the proposition that the First Amendment protects only the freedom to use old-fashioned hand presses – that the Founders can't possibly have meant to authorize unrestricted use of today's far more dangerous, high-speed electrical presses, with their ability to spread lies and seditious, anti-government propaganda hundreds of times faster than Ben Franklin or James Madison could ever have imagined? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speaking of my (necessarily brief) summary of the inquiries that have gutted the tired old "militia clause" arguments, noted Alabama constitutional attorney Larry Becraft writes in: "Vin, You did not mention: www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm." Frankly, I'm cautious about using Department of Justice filings, because they're inherently political and could easily shift under some future Hillaryesque administration. Nonetheless, Larry does offer up an official DOJ memorandum of opinion, dated Aug. 24, 2004, which finds: "The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. ... As developed in the analysis below, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units. "The Amendment's prefatory clause, considered under proper rules of interpretation, could not negate the individual right recognized in the clear language of the operative clause. In any event, the prefatory clause – particularly its reference to the 'Militia,' which was understood at the Founding to encompass all able-bodied male citizens, who were required to be enrolled for service – is fully consistent with an individual-right reading of the operative language." December 30, 2005

"You are so, so, so wrong. In the proper hands, it can be used effectively at ranges well over a mile. It's not technically supposed to be used on human targets (geneva convention), so it is designated a "special purpose sniper rifle" and is only supposed to be used on military equipment. But, belt buckles and helmets are military equipment if you think about it. It has less kick than the m40, ammunition that blurs the line in between "missile" and "bullet", and looks fucking cool. " yeah, i realize this. it is a long range weapon. the problem with the barrett is last time i talked to my sniper friend is you cant get match ammo for them. plain jane m-2 ball, isnt much in the way of precision. its for massacreing shit. he said you can get a little here and thier but its rare, handloads. like i said before its a 3 moa gun. 30" at 1000 yards, i didnt say this was its max range. go out farther and watch is spread out more. and saying its totally effective to a mile is like saying the m40a1or 3 is really effective to 1500 yards. most people believe the marines are to generous in saying its effective to 1000 yds and encourage shorter shots. its dead on for most shooters, 7-800 or less. although, in good hands, sometimes you get your groove on farther, didnt someone just get a kill at 1600 yd with a .308 in iraq? wasnt carlos hathcocks's longest confirmed kill in vietnam with his m-2 unertl scope mounted machine gun at around 2500 yards? i dont think because one of the best snipers knocked someone off at this range, it is common. its possible, but not common. some people say the effective range of a flintlock long rifle is over 300 yards, with open sites. sure, this was about the longest confirmed kill in teh revolution with a rifle, but effectiveness was about out to 150 yds, unless you were a crack shot and have eagle eyes. and what are "rules of war" anyway? that shit is a joke. people do get shot with barretts, but as you and I both said before, its for equitment etc etc. and civilians do have the right to own one. take the .50 away and most bills i have read, would take away my .58 caliber flintlock long rifle.

yeah i wonder what the penetration on that jammy is? 20 walls or just 15? lol i was eyeing up a .50 cal DEEAGLE the other day at the gun show.

man, this is one of the few subjects i can yap about for years. if i had an extra 7500k laying around my man hood would really be pumped up............

i agree with all of ronnie barretts press releases. its like the assault weapons ban. everyone thought it would do all this good, keep guns out of criminals hands, stop killings, etc etc. it didnt do shit. all it did was keep me and robj from buying an ak or ar15 with... something like 3 out of the 10 banned features. im sure kabar could elaborate on this, in cant remember the specifics. but, big whoop they were regulating an ar 15 from having a 30 round mag AND a bayonet lug, with a pistol grip, when in reality, an almost insignificant amount of gun crime is done with these evil black assault weapons.

a .50 cal is essential. but in reality, even in the military, they are not used to kill people exclusively. sure a few here and there, they are taking out big things. tanks, jeeps, setting off explosives, you know shit like that. a stock barrett .50 m107 is on a good day a 3 minute gun. what does this mean? at a 1000 yards, well in its effective velocity range, it will shoot a 30" group. this is not sniping quality. but hey, they are damn cool, and it essentially boils down to "what part of infringed dont you understand." :innocent: I think overall i can agree with what symbols is saying above. however i am uncomfortable with the reguard to regulating morality. while i agree the federal government shouldnt have its hand in anything not talked about in the constitution, such as legalising abortion, banning drugs, etc etc, I do believe the states have the right to do what the people want, and it shouldnt concern the federal government what they do nor should it concern the other states. but not legislating morality is kind of a bad wording because then there might still be segregation, lynchings, slavery, etc etc. just a thought.

"and being a scientist, i know that statistics at least give a window on a issue. if you would like to deny their validity, i guess my part here is done. " im definately not discounting them. im just saying that i could pull out my copy of called "the bias against guns" and could literally blow any "anti gun" statistics out of the water.

"Besides, people were usually hung for heinous crimes within a week of being tried back when the Constitution was being written, and that was with a jury. The sense of right and wrong was a lot more black and white then. You couldn't fuck around, and get some famous lawyer to get you off. " this is a very very very good point.

so called gun control is unconstitutional. what part of "infringed" dont you understand? gun control and registration is the first step to confiscation. ask the jews in germany. or the russians under stalin. they will tell you. all gun control does is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to own a gun. of all the gun crime, what part of it is done with legally registered handguns by thier lawful owner? now think real hard on this one. gun control is anti liberty. period.

i know, i know, im a loonball survivalist gun nut, but i think your opinion might change is say...if you walk in to your house and some guy has jack the rippered your kid, is raping your wife with a hand gun in her mouth, and says "your next honey."then some other dude jumps out and says "on your knees, let me hear you squeal like a pig boy..." just dial 911 right? but i know i know, whats the chance of it happening right? big brother is here to protect you.

i read your first post. i didnt comment mainly because i can pull out "the Bias against guns" and blow all your statistics out of the water in defense of guns. statistics arent necessarily the best way to handle things. I could also pull out "the bell curve" or something similar and we could have an endless racism argument. we take a risk every day by literally existing. we cannot rid the world of all evil. we would have to get rid of matches because they start forest fires. i could continue. in this debate there have been a few things that have been brought up. first, what is the second amendment. second, does it allow citizens to own guns. third, is someone personally opposed to guns or for them. guns are no joke. im not denying this. i like guns for many reasons. i realize what they do. hell, you should of came blowing up pumpkins with us that day and and we could of been arguing about the velocity of various cartridges and loads at various distances, and its effect on pumpkin flesh. ;)

you can commit suicide with a pencil. ganstas "capping" people are losers. you have a better chance of getting killed in a car accident than with a gun. should be ban all cars too? you cant get rid of guns, so why not let citizens keep the right to defend themselves?

"Pessimism is nothing but informed optimism, and I'm not willing to be subject to the realities of my situation without being ready to take care of myself. The biggest irony of all this, is this. We're all criminals, in one way or another, almost as a rule on this board. Can you count on the police to take care of you and your business? That's something that soccer moms can believe in, but I see too many problems with that assumption. " nice post. waiting for the police to come is a good way to get killed. if someone threatens my life or my families life, hell even my friends life when i am present, be it being robbed or breaking into your house, he is getting 2 in the chest and one in the head. on another note, i think i disagree with those cops on using a single shot shotgun for home defense. i realize you can keep it loaded just about forever, but is one shot enough? 00 buck doesnt spread out to cover a wall at ranges under 20 feet, (most houses/aparments, a shot would usually be way under 20 ft.) hell, it wont spread out to cover a wall unless you are real far away, and by this time you wont have any killing power. the only way it might spread big like that is if it is seriously cut down. so if you add in being scared shitless to the equation, with some guy pointing a gun at you, and you dont hit center chest, home boy is not incompacitated. a simple pump action gun, with 5+ shots is what i have confidence in. mossberg 500's with 18" tubes can be had damn near all day long for 200-250$ used at any gun show. and being short it is manueverable in a house. self defense/home defense is not about killing, but putting guy on the floor and not being a threat. if guy is hit, and his arm is still moving with a gun in it, he is still a threat. 00 buck/.45 caliber handgun is about the best choices for stopping something.

the militia argument is brought up soley because it is in the second amendment. the second amendment is not about hunting, or target shooting. it is about being armed as a last resort for self defense and to protect from tyranny in government. "angel of death- governments dont make laws that protect your 'natural rights' governments make laws that restrict your natural rights for the common good of members of the society they govern." im assuming your not from america. the constitution of the US, IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT. IT GRANTS NO RIGHTS! the constitution recognizes people of a free societys' natural rights granted at birth, and builds a government to protect them. every human has a right to defend life, liberty and property. I do not give a rats ass if it makes sense or not to be armed for your own self defense or to protect your property, but the amendment created to protect the rights of citizens in a free society, tells the government to keep hands off of guns. it is an inalienable right. disarming the populace has preluded the rise of the most brutal dictators in the 20th century the only reason we even have a constitution today is because of the bill of rights. the federalists wanted a centralised state to run the country. the anti federalists wanted decentralised government. the bill of rights was the compromise. the federalists wanted a central bank and life term presidents. these arguments present the key differences between liberals and conservatives(including libertarians). liberals believe in collective rights like the 2nd amendment only pertains to collective government bodies and police forces. conservatives believe in individual rights, as did the founders of this country. the second amendment, is an individual right, as declared by the framers of this country, and was put in place soley to keep the populace armed for the final check on the federal government. if there was no second amendment, there wouldnt be any others. i'll leave you with these. the constitution says what it says. "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322) "The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.) "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789]) "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169) "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888)) "...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.) "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1) "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..) "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646) "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939) "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson) "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington) "...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,) "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [boston, 1833]) "The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979]) "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)] " `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] "The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)] "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [state vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] please dont even TRY to tell me that the right to bear arms is a collective right pertaining to police forces and that the founders didnt intend for citizens to own them. what would you think if we placed restrictions like gun control on freedom of speech, press, right to trial by jury, no unwarranted search and seizures, and told everyone they could practice any religion they want to as long as it was either christianity or islam?

for the record, the group jews for preservation of firearms, is open to anyone, is not religious in nature, and is one of the more hardcore gun groups. GOA is the best, because they are hardcore and a bigger organization.

sorry guys, but this thread is just getting funny. the patriot act and its offshoots are a joke. they are a blatant violation of constitutional principle and a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. this spying is seriously fucked up, but i cant figure it out. everyone is crying like our liberty is JUST NOW being taken. our liberty has ALWAYS been at stake in this country. even back to the federalist/anti federalist debates at the constitution convention. even back to hamilton creating the first federal bank and jackson abolishing it. back to when lincoln was invading maryland and putting it under martial, suspending habeus corpus, subsidizing all kinds of crap with federal money, lincolns war time tax, draft and clevelands flat 2% tax, to the income tax amendment in 1913. these are all violations of the constitution. some people act as though 9/11 was the turning point. like all liberty was taken by the administration at this time. the patriot act is essentially an extension of clintons 96 " Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act." hillary wanted a national ID with her socialized healthcare. i didnt hear people flapping about liberty being taken then. i didnt hear any one flapping about clintons unconstitutional wars without congressional vote or anyone talking about liberty when waco was assaulted under his watch. i dont hear anyone talking about liberty being taken with FDR's social security and social security cards. we have to deal with an unconstitutional government body called the irs with robs us of our money to distribute as they see fit. it is illegal and immoral to rob someone of a winter coat in the winter time and give it to someone else who may or MAY NOT have a winter coat. but it is ok for the feds to do it. we have to deal with a federal reserve system who robs us blind through inflation, and can create money out of thing air. i could go on for pages, but you get the point. for well over a century, the progressive thought has reigned supreme and has taken over this country. and to just think that liberty is just now in question, just makes me chuckle.

amen, Kabar2. someone mentioned where do you draw the line? this is a common question. the intent and definition of the amendment by the people who wrote it, were talking about military service arms. at the time of the constitution convention, this was a flintlock musket of british or french origin, many were american at this time with imported parts. smoothbores were preferred for quick loading to volley fire in rows. many had rifles, but good riflemen fought in rifle units. these were essentially the "special forces" of the day. there are confirmed kills out to 300 yds with open sited flintlock rifles. I personally hold the constitution and the people who wrote it to be the supreme law of the land. one cannot think about trying to interpret the meaning of the amendment and discount the federalist papers, which explains the constitution. and yes, i do think the that the flag should be able to be burned under the constitution, as does justice scalia. It does however not protect someone from beating the shit out of you if you do it. abortion, we have talked about this, neither the founders or myself believe that abortion should even be talked about by the federal government. period. for someone saying something about gun control reduces crime...i just have one thing to say. "if guns kill people, then spoons made rosie odonnell fat." if your serious about guns, join Gun Onwers of America, Jews For Preservation of Firearms, and The National Rifle Association, (even if they do play politics to much and keep yapping about hunting.)

indeed, atleast 10 30 round mags, all loaded, less 1 round, with a tracer the 4th from the end so you know when your gonna have to dump the mag.

john birch is on some bullshit. what part of "infringed" dont you understand? have you ever read the federalist papers? have you ever actually read what the writers of the amendment explained it to mean? simply put, the people were to be armed for self defense and to defend liberty. it was put in place to stop the federal government from imposing tyranny on the people. i can bore you with an ass load of references, but it would probably be pointless. the militia is not some collective body of a police force, the militia, still to this day is the people. every able bodied man, 18-45, at the time of the revolution, every able bodied man 18-60. please refer to the department of justice report put out last year that shows the amendment is refering to an individual right, not a police force right. it is well understood from both jefferson and madison, that when referring to "arms" they were referring to military service arms. the founders of this country were anti standing army. why? they felt that if the government were under control by the wrong person, the national police force would use force against the people and invade thier liberty. most libertarians hold to this today. militias are for defense of the homeland. the 2 clauses of the second amendment dont necessarily flow together. what does infringed actually mean you ask? infringed is anything stopping me from walking into a gun store, flopping down a large sum of money, for a full auto m16a4, 1000 rounds of 5.56, and 10 .45 1911's. gun control is unconstitutional. to say that defenders of the second amendment are un american hypocrites is very offensive. the constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes natural rights, and creates a government to protect them. they are not doing there job. sorry to the creator of this thread for taking the bait on dudes post and turning this into a second amendment political thread.

certified gun nut right here. i think every able bodied male, 18-45, should be doing our duty, as members of the militia under US code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311. we should all own atleast one service arm, in a nato caliber, preferably a US nato round, with a minimum of 500 rounds, and all accouterments to go with it. a side arm, and other necessaries are a plus.

i think this whole cutting the budget shit is hilarious. while its a step in the right direction, how much of this is really a cut? how come in washington an increase is called a cut? they arent cutting shit. chop off about 5 trillion of fat, then we might be doing something.

since political history is one of my favorite things to discuss, we also cant forget that the political parties of old, had more than one wing to them. basically cut along southern and northern lines. the democratic party, was essentially liberal from FDR onward, (actually back to Wilson) with the exception of the southern democrats. the yanks latched ahold of the party around the time of the depression. before FDR they were basically the states rights, limited government party. the republicans were the big business party, but had a much better record on civil rights at this time. in the 40's and 50's emerged a wing of conservative republicans. Robert Taft being the leader and most known. there were a few here and there before hand, mainly Coolidge and some 20's era republicans. they were laissez faire in general. the big shift came in the 60's when goldwater ran and split the republican party. goldwater's platform was essentially the traditional democrat platform from the civil war to the world war I. this campaign in 1964 won many southern votes. it made it ok to vote republican. but we all know, the liberal democrat LBJ came away ahead in the election. so once the democratic party basically kicked out the conservative members, many found home in the republicans conservative wing. then came reagan, and he essentially turned the solid democratic south, into the solid republican south. im sure the grandparents of today's southerners are rolling in their graves, with the south voting for lincolns party. so it is somewhat true to say that some members of each party today resemble members of the "other" party back in the day, it isnt totally true. the parties werent as united as they are today. on an odd note, there was actually quite handful of republicans in certain areas of the south. mainly in appalachian regions. southwestern VA, east TN, western NC, north georgia were all republican strong holds. there were many guerillas fighting as home guards during the civil war for the north in these areas. and these are the same people who get the shit for being those racist rednecks, when actually these hillbillies were on the side of the north during the war between the states.