Didnt take him long...

[BrentAllen]

Ed,

Spoken like a true liberal gun grabber.

 

Why does anyone need a large flat screen tv?

 

Why does anyone need a Corvette?

 

Why does anyone need alcohol?

 

Why does anyone need an SUV?

 

Why does anyone need a big house?

 

Why does anyone need more than one phone in their house?

 

Why does anyone need more than one child?

 

Why does anyone need anything?

 

When you start letting the government tell you what you need, you don't want to see where you will end up.

 

By the way, Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have killed with any of my "assualt weapons." So, who should have something taken away?

 

Did you know that World War II M1 Garands (that I happen to collect) are classified as "assault weapons?" Yep, a rifle built for use in the 1940's is classified as an "assault weapon" because it is semi-automatic and has an evil bayonet lug on it. How ridiculous is that? Many veterans from WWII have purchased these rifles, the rifle they carried into battle. But the government wants to make them illegal.

 

So, why should an law-abiding citizen want to own an "assault weapon?" Because our forefathers owned them in 1776. And that made all the difference.

[Hal_Crawford]

Looking at the AWB it does not appear that the M1 qualified as an "assault weapon". The ban's definition was that it be:

 

Semi automatic (it is)

Have a detachable magazine (it does)

and that it have TWO of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock (no)

Pistol grip (no)

flash suppressor (no)

Bayonet lug (yes)

Grenade launcher (unless fitted with an M7 grenade launcher-no).

 

A bayonet lug by itself does not make an assault weapon. IF the M1 is considered an assault weapon it is at least in part because it can fire a rifle grenade. There were some variants of the M1 that had flash suppressor or a folding stock but they are pretty rare.

[vol_scouter]

Liberals claim to be so interested in personal freedom and liberty. Do what you wnat to do. Legalize drugs, etc. So why do they wish to take others rights away from them? Why do they vote for politicians who wish to move to governments that are prone to abusing peoples rights? Why are they so bent on removing the peoples rights to own guns - which unlike freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press - was given its own Amendment. Without the Second Amendment, we are absolutely powerless against an oppressive government. If you are for freedom, then you cannot support Obama, socialism, and gun control.

[GernBlansten]

One thing for sure, global warming is a farce. Ed and I agree. Hell has officially frozen over.

[Kahuna]

>>Liberals claim to be so interested in personal freedom and liberty. Do what you wnat to do. Legalize drugs, etc. So why do they wish to take others rights away from them?

[TheScout]

Kahuna are you serious? Apparently we do not even live in the same world.

[Kahuna]

>>Apparently we do not even live in the same world

[TheScout]

Modern liberals like to expand the power of government. This takes away individual freedom.

 

Look how federal control over the economy and banking grew under Lincoln while he was fighting his war. He took away the right of the states to leave the union. Stole millions of articles of slave property. Jailed political dissidents. Shut down the Maryland legislature. Declared martial law without the consent of Congress.

 

Jump to the next big expansion of government power under liberals in the early 1900s like T. Roosevelt and Wilson. Increased regulation of the economy. Putting controls on child labor, minimum wages, amount of time that one can work. Regulating banks and industry. Creating a Federal Reserve to print its own money to finance this and dominate all other banks. World War I also say a string of abuses far worst than anything under the Patriot Act. Check out the Espionage and Sedition Acts and the Committee on Public Information.

 

Look at FDR who again expanded the government at the expense of individuals. Ordering banks to close, seizing private gold, making a minimum wage, taking more taxes for 'Social Security' to tell Americans how to retire. Increasing regulation of business again. Imposing price controls and non-competition agreements. Not to mention the internment of the Japanese Americans.

 

Truman wanted to nationalize railroads and steel mills to stop strikes. Was only stopped by the SCOTUS and Congress.

 

Then the liberals on the SCOTUS went to work in the 1960s and 70s. Extended federal power to regulation of schools, voting districts, contraception, abortion, and school prayer.

 

LBJ started his Great Society programs to make the government even bigger. Less money and therefore freedom in Americans pocket and more to the government again.

 

Modern liberals. Want to take even more of our money. Want to make gun controls. Want to kill babies. More government ownership of private corporations than ever before. Do not want to let local governments have 10 Commandment monuments on their property. Want to force banks to reconfigure home mortgages. Do not want to let people pray in schools. Want to raise the minimum wage. Want the government to coerce people to making more green power sources. Do not like school vouchers.

[MileHighScouter]

I SINCERELY hope that we all recognize that this chat room is a hoot, but that none of this belongs in our talks with our Scouts. A Scout respects other people at all times.

But it is fun, so here goes

 

BrentAllen WROTE: Obviously, you have no idea about the National Rifle Matches, and the Service Rifle category. Why is this important? If you study your history, you will know the reason the US was able to field an army so quickly for WWII was because we had so many civilians competent in riflery.

 

COMMENT: Thats silly. The army teaches to shoot in basic. Many WWII soldiers had never fired any gun (after all, remember that most people live in cities, not in the county, even then). Moreover, we did not enter WWII quickly. The Philippines fell because of lack of replacement troops, WWI weapons & equipment, no air support, no transport and no ability to project our power that far. It took a year to enter the war in a meaningful way, and then that was a token. We got to North Africa (first ground troops not already in place at the beginning) in Nov 1942.

 

BrentAllen WROTE: the "assault weapons" they wish to ban are just semi-automatic rifles. They are not full-auto as they make the public believe.

 

COMMENT: Thats because automatic weapons are outlawed elsewhere, and have been since the 1920s (thanks to the hoodlums in Chicago and their Tommy guns.) Fun fact, the Thompson was invented for use in WWI, but arrived ready to ship on the last day of that war.

 

BrentAllen WROTE: why should the government tell me which type of rifles I should be able to own, as a law-abiding citizen? Our local police chief said the streets of Atlanta would be filled with bodies and the gutters would run red with blood if the AWB was allowed to expire in 2004. Well, it's been 5 years and no bodies and no blood in the gutters.

 

COMMENT: Huh. Use of automatic weapons has increased, as has the murder rate associated with them in the last five years. Ive seen blood in the gutters. But then I was a policeman. Is the complaint that there is not enough? Why tell you? Because, just like alcohol, driving and other stuff (see below) some people abuse their rights. It takes a license to drive a car. It should clearly take a license to own or shoot a gun. Let's compare. The US Constitution says that bankruptcy is ever person's right. But we have hundreds of pages of laws to make sure that a bankrupt doesn't get away with inconveniencing a credit card company, student loan, mortgage company etc. So the Constitution mentions guns. It does not make them exempt from further legislation, anymore than it makes bankruptcy subject to further legislation.

 

BrentAllen WROTE: if you have no problem with this plan [AWB bill?], I guess you will have no problem when the government tells you which cars and trucks you can drive, how you must get to work (car pool or public transportation), which type pocket knife you can carry, which doctor you can see and which treatments you can receive, how much water you can use (same with gas & electricity), the list goes on and on. It's called freedom. Let me repeat - it's called freedom.

 

COMMENT: Well, all those things are regulated. Cars & Trucks: try to buy one without an air bag, pollution control or a catalytic converter. How to get to work: who do you think chooses between more interstate or hwy lanes instead of light rail or subways, or vice versa? Knife you can carry: in most states a blade over 3 inches is a concealed weapon, also illegal are switch blades, spring knives, and in some places, gravity knives. Doctor & treatments: heard of HMO, PPO or Medicare/Medicaid restrictions on treatments and doctors? Thats all authorized by law. Water: Here in Denver we pay penalties for too much use, as they do in many parts of the country. Yes ITS CALLED FREEDOM. We vote for representatives (city, state, national) and they make laws, and we all abide by them, its called Freedom.

 

BrentAllen WROTE: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

 

COMMENT: and the Patriot Act, which I have read, is almost indistinguishable in its scope, intent and grant of unchecked powers as anything Hitlers party adopted in the 30s. Facism, pure and simple. It abrogates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, ignores the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and generally overturns all of the case law on search & seizure, secret proceedings and habeas corpus adopted in the last 200 years.

 

BrentAllen WROTE: Why does anyone need a large flat screen tv?

 

COMMENT: I dont know. But I know the Bushwacker made sure you have to buy a new TV, converter box, and antenna or subscribe to cable/satellite if you want to watch TV.

 

BrentAllen WROTE: Why does anyone need alcohol?

 

COMMENT: Dont know. But the government licenses who can use it, who can sell it, what you do with it, and how much it costs. And I know of no-one who thinks that regulation is bad.

 

BrentAllen WROTE: Why does anyone need more than one phone in their house?

 

COMMENT: I dont know. But I know that the government regulates EVERYTHING about telecommunications from price to use.

 

BrentAllen WROTE: When you start letting the government tell you what you need, you don't want to see where you will end up

 

COMMENT: Were way past starting. Your complaint is that someone is goring your ox. Well, lots of us have oxen that have already been gored. The first organized fight over the government's right to regulate occurred in Harper's Ferry and was lost only a few years after we became a country.

 

BrentAllen WROTE: By the way, Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have killed with any of my "assualt weapons." So, who should have something taken away?

 

COMMENT: The classic bait and switch. Lets talk the price of oranges and then complain that apples are soft. His crime was prosecuted. Did you shoot anyone? There are a thousand crimes a day in the US that I believe are resolved with the wrong disposition and punishment, so join the club. For example, a VP that takes $80 million from a company and then introduces legislation to make all that companys earnings from US Govt contracts tax free. Or a VP that shoots someone while intoxicated, but flees the jurisdiction in a US government airplane before the local sheriff can investigate. Always remember that they tired to impeach Clinton for a peccadillo, but it was an even dozen Republican congressmen who were immediately forced from office for their own sexual peccadillos, including Gingrich, who was a good guy. Glass houses, stones, ....

 

BrentAllen WROTE: So, why should an law-abiding citizen want to own an "assault weapon?" Because our forefathers owned them in 1776.

 

COMMENT: No they didnt. Assault weapons in 1776 were Brown Besses and they were in the armories, which were controlled by colony governors, which the British seized and the Colonials liberated. The rifles the milita carried were hunting and sporting rifles. Nary a semi-automatic among them (sorry, couldnt resist).

 

SO WHAT, well we all think differently, and we vote. Thats FREEDOM. But what my right wing friends often forget is that my opinion is just as valid, and holding it does not make me any worse a person, patriot or citizen than they are.

[TheScout]

"COMMENT: Huh. Use of automatic weapons has increased, as has the murder rate associated with them in the last five years. Ive seen blood in the gutters. But then I was a policeman. Is the complaint that there is not enough? Why tell you? Because, just like alcohol, driving and other stuff (see below) some people abuse their rights. It takes a license to drive a car. It should clearly take a license to own or shoot a gun. Let's compare. The US Constitution says that bankruptcy is ever person's right. But we have hundreds of pages of laws to make sure that a bankrupt doesn't get away with inconveniencing a credit card company, student loan, mortgage company etc. So the Constitution mentions guns. It does not make them exempt from further legislation, anymore than it makes bankruptcy subject to further legislation."

 

Who cares if there is blood in the gutters? The 2nd Amendment does not say we have the right to bear arms unless their is blood in the gutters. Driving a car isn't a right enumerated in the federal constitution. Neither is using alcohol, or declaring bankruptcy.

 

Your comparison of the bankruptcy clause to the 2nd Amendment shows you have no understanding of either.

 

 

"COMMENT: Well, all those things are regulated. Cars & Trucks: try to buy one without an air bag, pollution control or a catalytic converter. How to get to work: who do you think chooses between more interstate or hwy lanes instead of light rail or subways, or vice versa? Knife you can carry: in most states a blade over 3 inches is a concealed weapon, also illegal are switch blades, spring knives, and in some places, gravity knives. Doctor & treatments: heard of HMO, PPO or Medicare/Medicaid restrictions on treatments and doctors? Thats all authorized by law. Water: Here in Denver we pay penalties for too much use, as they do in many parts of the country. Yes ITS CALLED FREEDOM. We vote for representatives (city, state, national) and they make laws, and we all abide by them, its called Freedom."

 

Again, none enumerated rights in the Constituion. Freedom is not voting for representatives who take our freedom away.

 

 

"COMMENT: and the Patriot Act, which I have read, is almost indistinguishable in its scope, intent and grant of unchecked powers as anything Hitlers party adopted in the 30s. Facism, pure and simple. It abrogates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, ignores the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and generally overturns all of the case law on search & seizure, secret proceedings and habeas corpus adopted in the last 200 years."

 

Again shows that you have no understanding of histroy. Patriot Act is indistinguishable from Nazi powers? Is this a joke? Try reading the Nazi legislation. Start with the Enabling Act. That one alone will show you that you are wrong. You seem to overlook worse acts perpetrated by liberals. FDR's concentration of the Japanese during World War II. Wilson's Sedition and Espionage Acts as well as the Committe on Public Information during World War I which were much more strict than the Patriot Act. Lincoln's suspension of Habeous Corpus without Congress, jailing of dissidents, theft of property, declaration of martial law without Congress, suspension of the Maryland legislature.

 

"COMMENT: No they didnt. Assault weapons in 1776 were Brown Besses and they were in the armories, which were controlled by colony governors, which the British seized and the Colonials liberated. The rifles the milita carried were hunting and sporting rifles. Nary a semi-automatic among them (sorry, couldnt resist).

 

Many colonists owned Brown Besses from service in the French and Indian War. Many others owned them and kept them in their homes. Ever hear of the minutemen? You seriously need to study your history.

 

Remember why the British Army marched to Concord in the first place? To take away the weapons the colonists were storing there! They knew that the best way to keep a people down is to disarm them

 

"SO WHAT, well we all think differently, and we vote. Thats FREEDOM. But what my right wing friends often forget is that my opinion is just as valid, and holding it does not make me any worse a person, patriot or citizen than they are."

 

Thats all cool but I do not have to respect your belief that the government can take away or limit MY guns or regulate every aspect of MY life.

 

I would only say you are a worse citizen for what seems to be your poor understanding of the Constitution and history. ; )

[BrentAllen]

MileHigh,

TheScout beat me to the punch. You really need to study your history.

 

Automatic weapons could be purchased up until 1986 - study your history.

 

Yes, all those soldiers who couldn't shoot had to be taught. The army called on the civilians who were excellent marksmen to train them. Study your history.

 

The minutemen had what would have been labeled assault weapons at the time. Study your history.

 

Hal,

The M1's I believe were part of the earlier list of weapons declared "assault weapons" because they had been used as an infantry weapon. I do have M1's with flash suppresors on them - see the M1D and M1C.

[MileHighScouter]

Hi, The Scout. I love to debate. But I prefer actual facts when I do. Your statement that the US Constitution does not contain the "right" to declare bankruptcy shows that you do not know your facts. For bankruptcy see Sec. 1, Art. 8. For Alcohol, please see Amendment 21.

 

You also said: "Who cares if there is blood in the gutters?" I assume you are using the type of argument known as "devil's advocate". We all care. We promised to care. Both in the Oath and the Law.

 

You also said: "The 2nd Amendment does not say we have the right to bear arms unless their is blood in the gutters." That's right. It also does not say that Congress cannot impose regulation on the right.

 

You also said: "Your comparison of the bankruptcy clause to the 2nd Amendment shows you have no understanding of either." That, my friend, is an ad hominem attack. Its a personal attack which has nothing to do with the debate. Lets agree that we can debate and still be civil.

 

I had mentioned that all the stuff that BrentAllen said we would not accept if regulated, were in fact already regulated. Your comment that none of the "rights" were enumerated is off-point. The point is that they are regulated. For your argument that because the Second Amendment is the Constitution it can't be regulated, I would ask you to look at other Constitution rights that are also regulated by statute. You didn't like bankruptcy. Here's more:

 

The Fourth Amendment which ensures that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

 

However, the Patriotic Act says that the Feds can now arrest you without a warrant and hold you without notice, right to appeal, or even the right to communicate to anyone. The Act says that the Feds can break into your house at night, take anything they like and bug your house, without a warrant and without notice to you or any court. Where the Act requires warrants it says that no probable cause is necessary. So, my point is that if the Congress can gut the 4th Amendment, why can't it regulate the 2nd?

 

Another example, the Fifth Amendment. It says

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

Well, the Congress and the Supreme Court have said that you cant have a jury in about 20 areas of the law; that military law applies to the military in peacetime as well as wartime; that it is not double jeopardy to try a person for murder in State Court, and if the case is lost, retry the same person in federal court for the same murder; that you have no right to plead the fifth in about 20 areas of the law, even though the answers may incriminate you and be used against you; etc. So again, if Congress can gut the 5th Amendment, why cant it pass laws interpreting or regulating the rights under the 2nd Amendment?

 

You said: Again, none enumerated rights in the Constituion. Freedom is not voting for representatives who take our freedom away. Well, here our differences are more subtle. Freedom without law is not freedom, its anarchy. The issue is whether a representative democracy, which is what we adopted in the Constitution is better than a direct Democracy in which the people vote on every issue. The Founders didnt adopt the later because they didnt trust, well, you. They trusted the landowners and gentry, not the public.

 

I had explained that the Patriot Act is nothing but a facist manifesto, providing unstoppable and unlimited powers to the executive without checks and balances, just like the Nazis did when they took over their legislature. You responded by arguing that Roosevelt did worse with Japanese internment camps. Again, apples and tumbleweeds. I agree the internment camps were illegal. The Supreme Court dodged the issue until after the war, then agreed. Just like the Supreme Court dodged the issues on Gitmo until it was clear that Americans didnt like Gitmo and what it stood for, then they agreed.

 

You said: you have no understanding of histroy. Patriot Act is indistinguishable from Nazi powers? Is this a joke? Try reading the Nazi legislation. Start with the Enabling Act. That one alone will show you that you are wrong.

 

COMMENT: Ok, lets read them. The following is from the website http://jack-dalton.blogspot.com/2005/06/patriot-act-vs-german-enabling-act.html

 

and it provides a COMPARISON OF THE NAZI LEGISLATION AND THE PATRIOT ACT:

 

GERMAN ENABLING ACT: The Decrees of 1933 (a) The February 28 Decree. One of the most repressive acts of the new Nazi government, this one ALLOWED FOR THE SUSPENSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES.... the president was persuaded that the state was in danger and, hence, that the emergency measures embodied in the decree were necessary. Under Article 48 of the constitution, the decree would have been withdrawn once the so-called emergency had passed; any hope of this happening was prevented by the establishment of Hitler's dictatorship following the Enabling Act (see below). IT WAS IN FACT NEVER WITHDRAWN AND REMAINED UNTIL THE END AS AN INSTRUMENT OF NAZI TERROR AGAINST ORDINARY CITIZENS WHO RAN AFOUL OF THE REGIME.

 

ARTICLE 1: In virtue of paragraph 2, article 48,* of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against communist acts of violence, endangering the state: Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the CONSTITUTION OF THE GERMAN REICH ARE SUSPENDED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. THUS, THE RESTRICTIONS ON PERSONAL LIBERTY [114], ON THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION OF OPINION, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS [118], ON THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY AND THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION [124], AND VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF POSTAL TELEGRAPHIC, AND TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATIONS [117], AND WARRANTS FOR HOUSE SEARCHES [115], ORDERS FOR CONFISCATION AS WELL AS RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY [153], ARE ALSO PERMISSIBLE BEYOND THE LEGAL LIMITS OTHERWISE PRESCRIBED.

 

*Article 48 of the German Constitution of August 11, 1919: If public safety and order in Germany are materially disturbed or endangered, the President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, and, IF NECESSARY, TO INTERVENE WITH THE HELP OF THE ARMED FORCES. TO THIS END HE MAY TEMPORARILY SUSPEND, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS established in Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 ...........

 

PATRIOT ACT: 3.. Section 218 AMENDS THE PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIREMENT BEFORE CONDUCTING SECRET SEARCHES OR SURVEILLANCE TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE OF A CRIME;

 

4.. Sections 215, 218, 358, and 508 will PERMIT LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES TO HAVE BROAD ACCESS TO SENSITIVE MENTAL HEALTH, LIBRARY, BUSINESS, FINANCIAL, AND EDUCATIONAL RECORDS DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO STREGTHEN THE PROTECTION OF THESE TYPES OF RECORDS;

 

5.. Sections 411 and 412 give the Secretary of State broad powers to DESIGNATE DOMESITIC GROUPS AS TERROIST ORGANIZATIONS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POWER TO SUBJECT IMMIGRANTS TO INDEFINITE DETENTION OR DEPORTATION EVEN IF NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED;

 

and 6.. Sections 507 and 508 IMPOSE A MANDATE ON STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES WHO MUST COLLECT INFORMATION ON STUDENTS THAT MAY OF INTEREST [not use, not necessary, just interest!] TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

 

Please call your Senator and Representative, voice your opposition. For years I have been asked "Why did the German people not act?" Are you acting ? Please do

 

So, The Scout, you tell me how the two Acts are different? The Patriotic Act, or the essential parts anyway, were drafted during Reagans term by the War Heads a group of men Reagan did not trust and did not like, and whom he refused to appoint to important officeds. He threw the bill away. He called the War Heads unAmerican and scary. Rumsfeld, Cheney and several others in both Bush Administrations were those War Heads. Unfortunately, 9/11 allowed the undercover fascists to jump forward while their fellows were unwilling to actually read the act and oppose something called the Patriot Act.

 

The Scout, sorry, but I majored in History. The Brown Bess was a British Army weapon, soldiers did not take them after their service, they went to armories. The Bess was a smooth bore musket, useless for anything except massed volleys of fire by massed troops. A Colonist would want to hit his deer or squirrel, that took a rifle, with a rifled bore, not a smooth bore musket. Wikipedia explains about the Bess: The 1785 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, a contemporary work which defined vernacular and slang terms, contained this entry: "Brown Bess: A soldier's firelock. To hug Brown Bess; to carry a fire-lock, or serve as a private soldier." Accuracy of the Brown Bess was, as with most other muskets, poor, primarily due to the lack of sights and the use of undersized military ammunition for ease of loading. The effective range is often quoted as 100 yards (91 m) but was often fired en masse at 50 yards (46 m) to inflict the greatest damage upon the enemy. The combination of large caliber of the projectile, the heavy weight of its lead construction contributed to its low effective range. Military tactics of the period stressed mass volleys and massed bayonet charges, instead of individual marksmanship. The large soft projectile could inflict a great deal of damage when accurate and the great length of the weapon allowed longer reach in bayonet engagements.

 

Nope, Colonists kept their Besses in the Armory, and their rifles over the door. Yes, Ive heard of the Minutemen, and they have never been defined as having the Brown Bess as their weapon. In fact the sniping attacks that demoralized the British after Concord and Lexington would not have been possible if the Colonists had been carrying the military weapon. See the website http://www.concordma.com/magazine/janfeb02/brownbessmusket.html for a great discussion on misuse of the term Brown Bess and who actually used them.

 

You said: Remember why the British Army marched to Concord in the first place? To take away the weapons the colonists were storing there! They knew that the best way to keep a people down is to disarm them. EXACTLY, PRECISELY, YOU GOT IT! The weapons they wanted to take away were in the armory at Concord. The Brits needed to grab the armories because thats were the cannon, the military weapons, and the big stores of powder were held by the Colonial governors for their militias. The Brits never tried to disarm the Colonials of all weapons. As the Encarta Encylopedia explains: The Battle of Concord took place during the American Revolution on April 19, 1775. It was the first serious engagement of the revolution, which followed Paul Revere's famous ride warning of a British attack. The battle was fought at Concord, Massachusetts. American minutemen prevented British troops from crossing the bridge over the Concord River to seize the colonists' ammunition and military stores. The British retreated to Boston, harassed by fire from colonial militia.

 

Facts are good. Ad Hominem attacks are not.

[TheScout]

"Hi, The Scout. I love to debate. But I prefer actual facts when I do. Your statement that the US Constitution does not contain the "right" to declare bankruptcy shows that you do not know your facts. For bankruptcy see Sec. 1, Art. 8. For Alcohol, please see Amendment 21."

 

There is no right to bankruptcy. Congress may make "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." Far different from an enumerated right to bankruptcy. The Alcohol example is even worse. States retain the right to ban it. Try reading the Amendment. The Second Amendment specifically says the right to bear arms can not be infringed. Not like the other ones. That is why it is not an attack. You just do not show a good understanding of the Constitution. It is ok. A lot of people do not these days.

 

"You also said: "Who cares if there is blood in the gutters?" I assume you are using the type of argument known as "devil's advocate". We all care. We promised to care. Both in the Oath and the Law."

 

No, I don't care. The Constitution does not get shredded when there has been a murder, or two, or thousands. The Second Amendment stands.

 

"You also said: "The 2nd Amendment does not say we have the right to bear arms unless their is blood in the gutters." That's right. It also does not say that Congress cannot impose regulation on the right."

 

Yes it does. What part of "shall not be infringed" allows that?

 

"I had mentioned that all the stuff that BrentAllen said we would not accept if regulated, were in fact already regulated. Your comment that none of the "rights" were enumerated is off-point. The point is that they are regulated. For your argument that because the Second Amendment is the Constitution it can't be regulated, I would ask you to look at other Constitution rights that are also regulated by statute. You didn't like bankruptcy. Here's more:

 

The Fourth Amendment which ensures that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

 

However, the Patriotic Act says that the Feds can now arrest you without a warrant and hold you without notice, right to appeal, or even the right to communicate to anyone. The Act says that the Feds can break into your house at night, take anything they like and bug your house, without a warrant and without notice to you or any court. Where the Act requires warrants it says that no probable cause is necessary. So, my point is that if the Congress can gut the 4th Amendment, why can't it regulate the 2nd?"

 

Parts of the Patrot Act are unconstitutional. I have never defended it. Why do you assume I think it is. It is simply not the worst of all civil rights erroding legislatioin we have seen.

 

"Another example, the Fifth Amendment. It says

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

Well, the Congress and the Supreme Court have said that you cant have a jury in about 20 areas of the law; that military law applies to the military in peacetime as well as wartime; that it is not double jeopardy to try a person for murder in State Court, and if the case is lost, retry the same person in federal court for the same murder; that you have no right to plead the fifth in about 20 areas of the law, even though the answers may incriminate you and be used against you; etc. So again, if Congress can gut the 5th Amendment, why cant it pass laws interpreting or regulating the rights under the 2nd Amendment? "

 

Parts of the Constitution give Congress authority to wage wars. For a long time military courts have been allowed.

 

"I had explained that the Patriot Act is nothing but a facist manifesto, providing unstoppable and unlimited powers to the executive without checks and balances, just like the Nazis did when they took over their legislature. You responded by arguing that Roosevelt did worse with Japanese internment camps. Again, apples and tumbleweeds. I agree the internment camps were illegal. The Supreme Court dodged the issue until after the war, then agreed. Just like the Supreme Court dodged the issues on Gitmo until it was clear that Americans didnt like Gitmo and what it stood for, then they agreed."

 

The Japanese internments were worst but nobody mentions them -ever and FDR is held up as a near saint. Why is that? Calling it Facist is silly. To say it provides unstoppable powers like the Nazi Enabling Act is just false. The Enabling Act allowed the German President/Chancellor - offices which Hitler merged to pass laws without the consent of the Reichstag. The Patriot Act did no such thing. I am quite sure Congress still has most of its powers. Huge differnce.

 

Most colonies required men to own a weapon for militia duty. Many of them were Brown Besses left over from the Seven Years War. Especially true in many more settled areas where they did not have rifles for hunting. Rifles were very rare. You should know that. Your own source says many soldiers kept them for militia. duty.

 

The Lexington and Concord attacks were mostly done with muskets. Rifles were less popular in New England. More of a frontier weapon. The sniping attacks were possible. If you look at the stats for the ammount of shots fired vs hits you can see they were done with ineffective muskets. Many more royal soldiers should have died that day.

 

""You said: Remember why the British Army marched to Concord in the first place? To take away the weapons the colonists were storing there! They knew that the best way to keep a people down is to disarm them. EXACTLY, PRECISELY, YOU GOT IT! The weapons they wanted to take away were in the armory at Concord.

The Brits needed to grab the armories because thats were the cannon, the military weapons, and the big stores of powder were held by the Colonial governors for their militias. The Brits never tried to disarm the Colonials of all weapons. As the Encarta Encylopedia explains: The Battle of Concord took place during the American Revolution on April 19, 1775. It was the first serious engagement of the revolution, which followed Paul Revere's famous ride warning of a British attack. The battle was fought at Concord, Massachusetts. American minutemen prevented British troops from crossing the bridge over the Concord River to seize the colonists' ammunition and military stores. The British retreated to Boston, harassed by fire from colonial militia.

 

Whose armory was it in Concord? It was one of the Massachusettes Provincial Council formed by the colonists, it was not an imperial one. The people created it by themselves to give them extra resources to aid their fight against the British.

 

Facts are stubborn things. You should check yours a bit more sir. (And maybe take a Constitutional Law class!)

 

It would make you a better debater if you love it so.

[theysawyoucomin']

Hal,

 

The M1 does not have a detachable magazine.

 

The M1 has an 8 round clip.

 

A clip is not a magazine, a magazine is not a clip.

 

 

 

 

 

To all,

 

Why is it when somebody robs a bank or the trash in gangs does some killing for self worth do the anti gun, anti rights people want to infringe upon the gun owning rights of the 70 million people that did not commit the crime?

 

Hilter took the firearms owning rights away from Jews.

 

Imagine if every Jew in prewar Germany owned a gun, would Hilter have been able to do what he did?

 

If you don't want to own a gun, don't.

 

Don't even try to mess with my rights to own one. Every law they make infringes only upon the law abiding. Criminals don't care. How hard is that to comprehend?

 

When will anti gunners get a clue that GOVERNMENTS kill more people than individuals could ever comprehend?

 

Mao. Stalin. Hitler. They were all gov't guys. Upwards of 50 MILLION people dead there.

 

I love my country, I don't trust my GOVERNMENT. The media I trust even less.

 

 

[MileHighScouter]

Hi The Scout. Must be getting tired, now we are making up facts and changing history. One example says it all. You wrote: "Whose armory was it in Concord? It was one of the Massachusettes Provincial Council formed by the colonists, it was not an imperial one." Huh. Says who? The only "armories" were those erected by public works, which were the crown, throw royal colonial governors. The Brits went to secure THEIR guns, cannon and ESPECIALLY powder. The powder was key, as most folks didn't have that much, like any commodity its expensive. Only the government stock piles enough for war.

 

"You wrote: "(And maybe take a Constitutional Law class!)" I did that, did you? I got through law school and poli sci in college. Got mostly A's. Also got mostly A's in my history degree. Visited the colonial historic sites. Seen the armories. Read the history.

 

Our debate is over.