Re : M1
I'd seek a ruling on "Ability to accept a detachable magazine". As you know, M1s have a solid floor (Unlike M14s). The clips that hold the rounds together INSIDE might not be considered a 'magazine'.
Ever trim your thumbnail when loading?
Announcement Announcement Module
No announcement yet.
The actual Biden/Obama Plan Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
- Nov 2007
Yeah M1 Garand thumb...Beretta bite too...how embarrassing.
Not to mention that in their haste to look like they were doing something, they forgot to exempt Police, who typically carry 15 round magazine in NY.
- Jan 2010
Ya know the bayonet mount just puzzles me no end
Just how the heck does a small blunt piece of metal near the muzzle make a rifle more dangerous?
Even assuming the bad guys have a bayonet to mount on it, has anyone ever heard of one being used in a robbery? gang drive by shooting/stabbing?
sounds like a solution in search of a problem
- Jul 2002
Yeah, the wacko liberal mind of none other than Antonin Scalia acknowledged that the Second Amendment is not unlimited and is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
I say treat guns like cars - tax them, register them, license them, make operating them limited to qualified individuals and test those individuals on a periodic basis.
For me, a non-gun owner, now I don't have to just tolerate the nut cases that may be lurking with their guns of what ever vintage, caliber, capacity, etc. but it looks like now I'll have to fund them too.
Cars are not rights. What you are saying is applied to another personal right could go from what you wrote:
"I say treat guns like cars - tax them, register them, license them, make operating them limited to qualified individuals and test those individuals on a periodic basis."
I say treat speech and religion like cars - tax speech and religion, register people who exercise their rights for speech and religion, to make political discourse or to go to a religious place requires a license, only qualified individuals can practice free speech or religion and those individuals mud be retested on a periodic basis.
That is what you are doing to another right. Just because you do not perceive it as important does not mean that it is not very important. If you wish to deny citizens of their rights, then repeal or amend the Second Amendment.
- Dec 2007
I agree with background checks to prohibit criminal since they having given up their rights by their past actions,
Mandatory education to prove you know what your doing since your actions have consequences,
Passing a test to you prove you are responsible,
And paying a tax before you exercise you rights.
The above should be applied to guns and voting!
Cars are not rights.
Yah, yah, cars weren't around in 1787, but do yeh think da Founding Fathers would have considered horses a right? That if yeh owned a horse, the government could stop you from using it or take it away? Of course not. One of da most fundamental rights is the right to freedom of movement. That doesn't just mean walking. It means bein' able to travel to your place of employment or go on vacation with your family or just go off to see a neighbor. Yah, and da right to travel to attend worship services, and to speak, and gather news reports, and peaceably assemble to petition da government for redress of grievances.
Da only folks we put real travel restrictions on are convicted criminals, eh? Travel restrictions on horses would have been a far more effective way of stoppin' da Revolution than taking guns, as it would have cut off communication.
So it's complete nonsense to treat personally owned modes of transportation in da modern world as not being a "right." But like all rights, we regulate it when da state has a compelling interest in doing so. Typically, for safety, also sometimes for maintaining orderly commerce.
There's nuthin' at all wrong with regulating firearms for safety, or for maintaining orderly civil defense.
Eagle732 raises a similar (and I must say, attractive) issue for voting, eh? We do regulate da right to vote. Many states prohibit felons from voting, and used to require land ownership to vote (before we became an industrial society where renting was popular and economically efficient). Adding an education or test requirement probably passes muster, at least so long as it does not have differential effect on protected class(es). A mental health requirement also likely passes muster.
So we see that all rights are subject to limitations. It's disingenuous to claim that the right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to support the security of a free state through a well-regulated militia should be utterly free of limit or regulation.
- Jul 2007
- Dec 1999
"Da only folks we put real travel restrictions on are convicted criminals, eh?"
Did I miss something? Can I freely travel to Cuba now? Without some kind of special permission from the State Dept.?
Edit: Oops, I guess that would be "Treasury Dept." Here's what I just found in a CNN blub from last month:
""Each traveler must have a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that will result in meaningful interaction between the travelers and individuals in Cuba," U.S. Treasury Department guidelines for people-to-people travel read."
These rules apply to "people-to-people" tours. I guess while travel restrictions have been eased a bit, it's still a hassle and permission isn't automatic.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)
Can't find that right to ride a horse in the constitution. So no, I do not think that there would have been a right to a car or the lesser right to drive. Your argument makes no sense.
Why do you folks on the left (I know that you believe yourself to be sort of old republican but your views are all to the left) not wish to do what the founding fathers would have thought appropriate - amend the Bill of Rights? I believe the reason is, like most things from the left, it will never pass the people.
- Nov 2011
The right to ride a horse isn't enumerated because, just like the right to bear arms, it stems from the natural right of "liberty." Freedom to move and to be.
The constitution limits government intrusion on personal freedom; it does not limit those freedoms to only those delineated therein.
Cars are not rights. But anybody can own any car they want and use it all they want on private property. A 12 year old driver can cut doughnuts in a hayfield all day long and not break the law. (Your state may vary.)
But driving a car on PUBLIC highways with other members of the public is a PRIVILEGE, and you are subject to legal restrictions and control in order to maintain that privilege.
Yah, vol_scouter, have yeh actually ever read any of da documents of the Founding Fathers?
There was considerable concern by Madison, Hamilton, and others that some daft person in da future would try to apply expressio unius est exclusio alterius in the way that yeh seem to want to. See for example Federalist 84. It was for this reason that the 9th Amendment was added for clarity. Da right to freedom of travel, including travel by a conveyance of da person's choice, has always been considered a fundamental right in da U.S. - even before da Constitution in the Articles of Confederation.
Did I miss something? Can I freely travel to Cuba now?
LOL. Yah, well, yeh are free to drive your car there. Actually, yeh do have a Constitutional right to freedom of travel to Cuba. But like all rights, it is subject to regulation when da state has a compelling interest. Most of da law and regulation does not actually restrict travel per se; it restricts trade. Essentially, it's an embargo of an enemy country which includes spending any money in Cuba.
You can probably go to Cuba in connection with your day job, since educational exchanges are now OK. Da rest of us need to have relatives to leech off of down there.
But driving a car on PUBLIC highways with other members of the public is a PRIVILEGE
False. Travel on public roads or through da public airspace, be it by foot or horse or bicycle or auto is a fundamental Constitutional right. In all the States from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective States, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom. - United States v. Wheeler Indeed, travel by personal stock or vehicle is necessary to da exercise of most other rights, eh? To vote, to assemble, to speak, to worship, to go purchase a gun - all depend on a fundamental right to travel. Even that right to drive a car on your private land is contingent on a right to somehow drive da car to your property from the dealer.
(This message has been edited by Beavah)
Doubt it, because like the British, the Continental Congress and Continental Army were documented horse thieves.
"On 4 November 1775 the Continental Congress recommended that the legislatures of the New England states empower Washington to impress wagons, horses, vessels, and other necessities for the transportation or march of his army. This power was to be delegated to the Quartermaster General.37 Subsequently, Washington was authorized to impress goods and services in numerous emergencies. Clearly, Congress believed that an emergency justified the use of impressment. It later urged that in the use of impressment every possible attention be paid to the laws of the states and the rights of individuals. When military operations became centered in the Middle Department and impressment was resorted to with increasing frequency, Congress requested the states to pass laws authorizing and regulating impressment by the Continental Army."
In some cases the "impressed" goods were returned. Our new government was short on funds and deep in bills to contractors and soldiers which took a higher priority than reimbursing citizens; there were also differences over appraised values. I wonder if the New Jersey owner got his Durham boats back or was reimbursed by Washington?
Impressment of horses continued in the War of 1812, War Between the States,...
So no right to own/operate a horse, carriage, or car. The Constitution recognizes the right of freedom of travel* but there are no rights regarding the means, many are regulated. You cannot walk, bike, or horseback along many interstates. You cannot freely operate a car - you must have a license, registration, current inspection, insurance, ...
*Post 9/11, I am not so sure about our right of freedom of travel.