DIYbanter - View Single Post

Jim Yanik

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

In article , Robert Green wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message
news:Tuedna3UnKIOvpfTnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@earthlink. com...

"Don Klipstein" wrote in ...

I know one libertarian who wishes to take a time machine trip
back
to the late 1700's so as to remove from the US Constitition's
preamble the "public welfare" bit.

That doesn't surprise me. Many people are fierce defenders of the
parts of the Constitution *which they agree with*. Ditto with the
Supreme Court, when they agree with a ruling the court is just fine,
when they disagree the court is a bunch of morons.

stuff snipped

What many people conveniently forget is that today's firearms are
virtually nothing like the muzzle loaders of the Revolutionary War
period. Had there been AK-47's, Glocks, 30 round magazines, .44 and
.50 cal handguns in existence at the time, the Framers might have felt
the need to be more specific than they were.

Put another way, how happy would the NRA be if the SCOTUS decided that
the right to keep and bear arms applied only to muskets and
flintlocks? A strict Constitutionalist might have to consider not
just the words, but the context of the time the document was written.

This idiot must be unaware that the militia were required to appear for
muster bearing arms similar to and compatible with what was in use at the
time by the Regular Military.
Today,that would be real,full-auto or select fire AK-47's M-16s,etc,with 30
round magazines.The semi-auto versions we are -allowed- presently are the
compromise that the anti-gun idiots would take away.
(typical,too;compromise and the grabbers then renege and demand more
"compromise" from the gun owners,but never compromise on their side.)

they were also cognizant of the fact that military arms evolved and newer
weapons invented.

The schmucks are also unaware that many firearms were developed by and for
CITIZENS and later adopted by the military;the Barrett M82A1 .50 cal
"sniper rifle" is one fine example.

they are simply IGNORANT of the facts in the gun debate.

Admittedly a muzzle loader can do some damage. I recall a case where
some kid had taken his father's black powder replica and blasted a
hole clean through a car door, nearly killing the occupant. But the
time to load and fire the next shot is considerable and Columbine
wouldn't have been possible with muzzle loaders that represented
"arms" at the time the framers wrote the Constitution.

the Columbine kid also had BOMBS.

But if you want to change the Constitution,write an denact an
amendment;that is the only lawful way,not by enacting unconstitutional laws
and relying on shoddy court practices to "uphold" them..

I'm convinced that at least some gun enthusiasts would own 88mm
cannons if the law allowed.

NEWSFLASH;some US citizens DO own cannon,tanks,other armor,fighter
jets,machine guns,"destructive devices",etc. No problems,either.

Probably tactical "suitcase" nukes, too.

Weapons-Grade Stupid. not even worth arguing.

HeyBub would be first on the list to have his own 88mm flak gun - just
in case the squints and mopes came from the sky. (You KNOW you want
one, HeyBub - don't deny it. You could build a fake observatory to
house it, complete with a Palomar-style rotating turret dome.)

I seem to remember someone mounting big guns that couldn't aim low
enough to hit attackers - was it US carrier weapons in WWII and wave
skimming Japanese attack aircraft? The guns at Tobruk? Obviously
another swiss cheese hole has formed in my brain. Memory loss seems
perverse in that you remember you can't remember something. How cruel
is that?

Here's something: I don't feel fear of being robbed or gang-raped
by
some hypothetical Marcus Hook Militia that hypothetically owns and
operates for "training runs" so much as a battleship, an aircraft
carrier, and 1-2 cruisers and 2-3 destroyers.

My main fear from criminals is from ones petty enough to have
whatever
offensive armament they have being generally .22-.45 used in revolvers
and other pistols.

========

Here's another thing: Most heat-packing thugs in Philadelphia
appear
to me legally unqualified to do so, due to recent-past conviction or
recent-past not-yet-resolved criminal case in felony class, or age
under 21. It appears to me that Philadelphians carrying
shooting-irons with licenses to do so are disproportionately low on
doing crimes with guns, even regardless of PA definition of firearms
in PA's "uniform firearms act".

Exactly;the lawful citizens are not any threat or danger to other lawful
people. I call them Ordinary Decent Citizens",ODCs.

Maybe the illegally-heat-packing thugs hope they can roam the
streets
in Philadelphia's "bad neighborhoods" before being jailed
likely-again...

to be anti-gun is to be pro-criminal.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com