The right to bear arms...DEFINE ARMS - Page 4

BrianW · November 26, 2002, 02:26 AM

IIRC, one of the greatest mass murders in USA history was committed with a couple gallons of gasoline and a match. Does that constitute a WMD? If your downstairs neighbor is a smoker who likes to clean his Harley engine parts with gasoline in the wee hours and has an "ND", you could end up just as dead as if he had "forgotten" about his 10 sticks of dynamite sweating behind the furnace.

Since when has prohibiting anything actually worked? Prohibitions only work on the law-abiding, not on the criminals. Further, how many common chemicals do you plan to ban, in order to "prevent" people from creating explosives or chemical weapons? In order to prevent a possible or even improbable occurrence, the banners would inflict a definite infringement on everyone's rights. Why not simply make murder against the law, and punish those whose negligence results in harm to others? Oh yeah...

Wanna ban arms? First you have to ban knowledge itself. If you're interested in a real life example of what that looks like, just take a peek at Congress.

ojibweindian · November 26, 2002, 09:18 AM

I assume most here realize that it isn't too difficult to manufacture home-made WMDs. An understanding of chemistry and access to common chemicals is all one needs to make one.

Granted, these home-made devices are not nukes or large cannisters of Sarin, but they can be effective.

ReadyOnTheRight · November 26, 2002, 09:00 PM

From "Give It to Them Straight" - by John Ross, Author, Unintended Consequences:

THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer -- they're only for killing people."
WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice."

...

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs."
WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."
WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission."

http://www.fredsm14stocks.com/article.asp?ITEM=9

ChrisR246 · November 27, 2002, 12:57 PM

I've brought this up before, in various places, on this topic and never really gotten a good answer.

I will assume we all will agree with this sentiment from the Declaration of Independence

Quote:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

So government derives all it's power from the governed. It seems logical to say that we can only grant to governement powers that relate to rights we, as individuals, already possess. (e.g. We can grant government police powers because we have the right to defend ourselves and our property. We can not grant to government the right to interefere with someone's exercise of religion, because we as individuals do not possess that right.)

So, if we, as individuals, do not have the right to own WoMD, we can not grant that power to the government. If we can not grant that power then the government can not justly have that power.

MitchSchaft · November 27, 2002, 01:18 PM

Ahh, someone finally uses some logic

BigG · November 27, 2002, 01:49 PM

Define arms: Whatever I can use to unleash hell at my command.

Ben Swenson · November 27, 2002, 01:56 PM

Quote:

IIRC, one of the greatest mass murders in USA history was committed with a couple gallons of gasoline and a match.

The Bath Michigan School Massacre?
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.co...e/bathlink.htm

Committed at a time that anyone could mail-order a machine gun or saw off a shotgun.
(but the perp used explosives as well as gasoline)

BrianW · November 27, 2002, 02:45 PM

Cordex, I got off my lazy bum (actually I did the search on Copernic while sitting

) and found some info.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/happyland/5.htm

A cretin named Gonzalez torched the Happy Land club in the Bronx in March 1990, killing 87, because he was mad at his girlfriend, who was inside the club.

444 · November 27, 2002, 10:29 PM

"So, if we, as individuals, do not have the right to own WoMD, we can not grant that power to the government. If we can not grant that power then the government can not justly have that power."

"Ahh, someone finally uses some logic "

If you go all the way back to the first page you will see that I made the same point. However, like most stuff that makes sense, it was ignored.

"One point to keep in mind is that our system of government was intended to be a governement of the people, by the people, and for the people. It was never intended to be a we vs. they situation. Put another way, the government is not supposed to have any power that every single other person in this country does not also have; since the government is the people. We arn't supposed to have class sytem here where rights are granted to one group of people and denied to another.

With this concept in mind, your question makes no sense.

MitchSchaft · November 28, 2002, 04:32 AM

You're right. I've never been known for my good memory. That's my only excuse

.

DadOfThree · November 28, 2002, 04:54 AM

If the Army can own it, anyone should be able to own it. For many years, buying dynomite at the hardware store was no problem. If you don't have the proper storage facilities for whatever you want to buy and someone is hurt or killed, you should be held responsible. If you know this before you buy your Howitzer, you'll be darn careful with it or go to prison. It was not illegal for a citizen to own a cannon when the Constituition was written, they did not limit "the people" to muskets.

BigG · November 28, 2002, 11:04 AM

Quoting the Declaration or the Constitution ain't fair. It makes too much sense!

What? You mean you want to negate several decades of unconstitutional legislation by the regulatory agencies? Shocking!

Joe Demko · December 3, 2002, 09:07 AM

So, you are saying you have the "right" to stockpile explosives, store them improperly, not dispose of them as appropriate, and nobody has the right to say 'boo" to you about it until *after* your foolishness has caused death/damage? I don't think so. Whether at the federal level or through local laws, I believe you need to prove in advance that you have proper storage facilities and can meet safety standards as adhered to by industry and the military regarding storage and handling of explosives.

Tamara · December 3, 2002, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Whether at the federal level or through local laws, I believe you need to prove in advance that you have proper storage facilities and can meet safety standards as adhered to by police and the military regarding storage and handling of firearms.

Wow. I change two words and you sound like Diane Feinstein...

Joe Demko · December 3, 2002, 09:18 AM

Wash your mouth out with soap, Tamara, such language is both unbecoming and unwarranted.

So, would you also say that a drunk has the right to weave intoxicatedly down the highway until after he has hit someone?

Ben Swenson · December 3, 2002, 09:23 AM

Should you have to prove safe storage for gasoline before you're allowed to buy it? Dangerous stuff, that.

Quote:

Wash your mouth out with soap, Tamara, such language is both unbecoming and unwarranted.

Unbecoming, perhaps, but I think it was completely warranted.

Quote:

So, would you also say that a drunk has the right to weave intoxicatedly down the highway until after he has hit someone?

Not I. Nor would I allow someone to point a gun at others until they pulled the trigger.
Recklessly endangering someone's life is wrong. However, the burden of proof is on the state to prove wrongdoing.

Tamara · December 3, 2002, 09:24 AM

Quote:

So, would you also say that a drunk has the right to weave intoxicatedly down the highway until after he has hit someone?

I am on record here on TFL as stating "I don't care whether you drive down the road with a vodka bottle on an IV, so long as you don't hit anyone."

I don't believe in prior restraint, Golgo-13, and that belief is consistant across the spectrum. It's so much less of a headache to me than having to remember, as I used to, "do we license and control people like children on this thing or is this thing one of the things where we treat them like adults and only hold them responsible for their screwups?"

Joe Demko · December 3, 2002, 09:26 AM

As has been stated by others in the thread, the problem with explosives is that they are "pointed" at everyone within their destructive radius. If the idiot next door points a gun at me, I'm going to have issues with him. If the idiot next door has explosives "pointed" at me, I'm going to have issues with him over that. When the idiot puts the gun down, it isn't going to point itself at me and spontaneously go off. You can't say the same about improperly stored explosives.

Tamara · December 3, 2002, 09:29 AM

Have you considered talking to the idiot next door?

If his criminal negligence and wanton disregard for human life is provable, have you considered taking him to court?

Joe Demko · December 3, 2002, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Unbecoming, perhaps, but I think it was completely warranted.

You are doing a fine job of playing Chester to Tamara's Spike.

Quote:

Should you have to prove safe storage for gasoline before you're allowed to buy it? Dangerous stuff, that.

Actually, to some extent you already do. Go down to a gas station and try to get them to fill a glass jug with high test for you.

Tamara · December 3, 2002, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Go down to a gas station and try to get them to fill a glass jug with high test for you.

Another assinine and pointless bit of legislation. Bureaucratic folderol. Feelgood pap. What's to keep me from getting home and siphoning my tank into a few dozen mason jars?

Moreover, suppose my car's outta gas and the only container available is glass?

Once again, a pack of nimrods in a marble building someplace are generating reams of paperwork in trying to do our thinking for us, and failing miserably. (And also, sadly, convincing a large part of the planet that it is right and meet for government to think for us and that nanny will remove all the sharp edges, pad the corners with nerf, and protect us from mean ol' Charles Darwin...)

Ben Swenson · December 3, 2002, 09:38 AM

Quote:

You are doing a fine job of playing Chester to Tamara's Spike.

You flatter me.

Quote:

Actually, to some extent you already do. Go down to a gas station and try to get them to fill a glass jug with high test for you.

*shrug* You have to provide safe transport. Not Tamaras ideal world I'm sure, but that's it. No requirements on having to prove safe storage once you get it home.

Joe Demko · December 3, 2002, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Moreover, suppose my car's outta gas and the only container available is glass?

Then I'd say it's that mean ol' Darwin at work, again. An evolutionarily advanced driver knows what "E" and "F" mean on that little dial.

ctdonath · December 3, 2002, 10:33 AM

you are saying you have the "right" to stockpile explosives, store them improperly, not dispose of them as appropriate, and nobody has the right to say 'boo" to you about it until *after* your foolishness has caused death/damage?

You have the right to own explosives. With that right comes responsibility. If you store them in a manner threatening to others, the others have the right to act against you. If, however, you store them properly without threatening others, they have no right to interfere with your ownership thereof.

Joe Demko · December 3, 2002, 10:47 AM

Quote:

You have the right to own explosives. With that right comes responsibility. If you store them in a manner threatening to others, the others have the right to act against you. If, however, you store them properly without threatening others, they have no right to interfere with your ownership thereof.

Which brings us back to where I came into this thread. If you can store and handle them properly, then as far as I'm concerned you can have all the explosives you care to buy. The problem, from the non-prior restraint POV, lies in how do I know that you are storing them properly unless I know in advance that you have them?

November 26, 2002, 02:26 AM	#76
BrianW Member Join Date: October 28, 2002 Location: Alaska Posts: 70	IIRC, one of the greatest mass murders in USA history was committed with a couple gallons of gasoline and a match. Does that constitute a WMD? If your downstairs neighbor is a smoker who likes to clean his Harley engine parts with gasoline in the wee hours and has an "ND", you could end up just as dead as if he had "forgotten" about his 10 sticks of dynamite sweating behind the furnace. Since when has prohibiting anything actually worked? Prohibitions only work on the law-abiding, not on the criminals. Further, how many common chemicals do you plan to ban, in order to "prevent" people from creating explosives or chemical weapons? In order to prevent a possible or even improbable occurrence, the banners would inflict a definite infringement on everyone's rights. Why not simply make murder against the law, and punish those whose negligence results in harm to others? Oh yeah... Wanna ban arms? First you have to ban knowledge itself. If you're interested in a real life example of what that looks like, just take a peek at Congress. __________________ Political pragmatism is the problem, not the solution.

November 26, 2002, 09:00 PM	#78
ReadyOnTheRight Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2002 Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota Posts: 377	From "Give It to Them Straight" - by John Ross, Author, Unintended Consequences: THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer -- they're only for killing people." WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.) WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're good practice." ... THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs." WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ." WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and satellite transmission." http://www.fredsm14stocks.com/article.asp?ITEM=9 __________________ "Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys." -Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle-

November 27, 2002, 01:49 PM	#81
BigG Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 1999 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 4,334	Define arms: Whatever I can use to unleash hell at my command. __________________ o "The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching." Assyrian tablet, c. 2800 BC o "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain o "They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?" Paul Harvey o TODAY WE CARVE OUT OUR OWN OMENS! Leonidas, Thermopylae, 480 BC

November 27, 2002, 02:45 PM	#83
BrianW Member Join Date: October 28, 2002 Location: Alaska Posts: 70	Cordex, I got off my lazy bum (actually I did the search on Copernic while sitting ) and found some info. http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/happyland/5.htm A cretin named Gonzalez torched the Happy Land club in the Bronx in March 1990, killing 87, because he was mad at his girlfriend, who was inside the club. __________________ Political pragmatism is the problem, not the solution.

November 28, 2002, 04:54 AM	#86
DadOfThree Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2001 Location: Upland, indiana Posts: 409	If the Army can own it, anyone should be able to own it. For many years, buying dynomite at the hardware store was no problem. If you don't have the proper storage facilities for whatever you want to buy and someone is hurt or killed, you should be held responsible. If you know this before you buy your Howitzer, you'll be darn careful with it or go to prison. It was not illegal for a citizen to own a cannon when the Constituition was written, they did not limit "the people" to muskets. __________________ Christian, American, Heterosexual, Pro-gun Conservative. Any Questions? James Madison: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. Mark Douglass

November 26, 2002, 09:18 AM	#77
ojibweindian Senior Member Join Date: April 20, 2000 Location: Huntsville, Alabama Posts: 1,198	I assume most here realize that it isn't too difficult to manufacture home-made WMDs. An understanding of chemistry and access to common chemicals is all one needs to make one. Granted, these home-made devices are not nukes or large cannisters of Sarin, but they can be effective.

November 27, 2002, 01:18 PM	#80
MitchSchaft Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2001 Posts: 1,197	Ahh, someone finally uses some logic

November 27, 2002, 10:29 PM	#84
444 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 3,968	"So, if we, as individuals, do not have the right to own WoMD, we can not grant that power to the government. If we can not grant that power then the government can not justly have that power." "Ahh, someone finally uses some logic " If you go all the way back to the first page you will see that I made the same point. However, like most stuff that makes sense, it was ignored. "One point to keep in mind is that our system of government was intended to be a governement of the people, by the people, and for the people. It was never intended to be a we vs. they situation. Put another way, the government is not supposed to have any power that every single other person in this country does not also have; since the government is the people. We arn't supposed to have class sytem here where rights are granted to one group of people and denied to another. With this concept in mind, your question makes no sense.

November 28, 2002, 04:32 AM	#85
MitchSchaft Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2001 Posts: 1,197	You're right. I've never been known for my good memory. That's my only excuse .

November 28, 2002, 11:04 AM	#87
BigG Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 1999 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 4,334	Quoting the Declaration or the Constitution ain't fair. It makes too much sense! What? You mean you want to negate several decades of unconstitutional legislation by the regulatory agencies? Shocking! __________________ o "The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching." Assyrian tablet, c. 2800 BC o "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain o "They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?" Paul Harvey o TODAY WE CARVE OUT OUR OWN OMENS! Leonidas, Thermopylae, 480 BC

December 3, 2002, 09:07 AM	#88
Joe Demko Senior Member Join Date: September 14, 2000 Posts: 1,143	So, you are saying you have the "right" to stockpile explosives, store them improperly, not dispose of them as appropriate, and nobody has the right to say 'boo" to you about it until after your foolishness has caused death/damage? I don't think so. Whether at the federal level or through local laws, I believe you need to prove in advance that you have proper storage facilities and can meet safety standards as adhered to by industry and the military regarding storage and handling of explosives. __________________ "No honest man needs a handgun smaller than a canned ham." Bill Ruger

December 3, 2002, 09:18 AM	#90
Joe Demko Senior Member Join Date: September 14, 2000 Posts: 1,143	Wash your mouth out with soap, Tamara, such language is both unbecoming and unwarranted. So, would you also say that a drunk has the right to weave intoxicatedly down the highway until after he has hit someone? __________________ "No honest man needs a handgun smaller than a canned ham." Bill Ruger

December 3, 2002, 09:26 AM	#93
Joe Demko Senior Member Join Date: September 14, 2000 Posts: 1,143	As has been stated by others in the thread, the problem with explosives is that they are "pointed" at everyone within their destructive radius. If the idiot next door points a gun at me, I'm going to have issues with him. If the idiot next door has explosives "pointed" at me, I'm going to have issues with him over that. When the idiot puts the gun down, it isn't going to point itself at me and spontaneously go off. You can't say the same about improperly stored explosives. __________________ "No honest man needs a handgun smaller than a canned ham." Bill Ruger

December 3, 2002, 09:29 AM	#94
Tamara Moderator Emeritus Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 16,002	Have you considered talking to the idiot next door? If his criminal negligence and wanton disregard for human life is provable, have you considered taking him to court? __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

December 3, 2002, 10:33 AM	#99
ctdonath Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 1999 Posts: 1,904	you are saying you have the "right" to stockpile explosives, store them improperly, not dispose of them as appropriate, and nobody has the right to say 'boo" to you about it until after your foolishness has caused death/damage? You have the right to own explosives. With that right comes responsibility. If you store them in a manner threatening to others, the others have the right to act against you. If, however, you store them properly without threatening others, they have no right to interfere with your ownership thereof.