In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:


Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader
can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic
weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are
excellent marksmen.)

Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber
muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in
muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But
these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their
repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if
you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before
you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full
auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your
next question below.

Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks
stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people
and became too powerful.

Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government
forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize
this advantage?

150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present
capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and
this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get
combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do
the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole
purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia,
or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see
happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world
as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I
*seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd
amendment.

-Adam

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

THE AB0VE STATEMENT MAY CAUSE BULL**** DETECTORS TO SPONTANEOUSLY
DETONATE. IF ANY BULL**** DETECTORS ARE STILL IN OPERATION, PLEASE
REMOVE THE BATTERIES, DISCONNECT ALL CABLES, AND TAKE THEM COMPLETELY
OUT OFOPERATION. IF A FARADAY CAGE IS AVAILABLE, PLACE THE BULL****
DETECTOR IN A WELL-GROUNDED FARADAY CAGE UNTIL ALL DANGER OF EXPOSURE
IS PAST.

Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch.

OK, fair enough. I presumed too much. I was assuming, given your
interest in the topic, that "Gunner" was not an homage to a fictional
character, but rather "one who fires guns". I misunderstood your intent
in choosing your alias, for which I apologize.

While you may be a man
of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a
smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you
google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. Take a break from your
dismal life and enjoy some good literature with some interesting
insights about Government, totalitarians and the military. See if you
can find which charector you most closely resemble, Sargent..er
Adam....chuckle....

In the interest of understanding your points, I will do so.

Your opinion and your doubts are interesting. Fatally flawed, bogus,
riddled with ignorance and dreck, but interesting non the less.

The big issue Adam..is not Intent, but the Constitution, the Law and
the desires of the Founders. They were some really smart people for
old dead white guys.

I agree with you there. One cannot really blame them for not being able
to predict the future of weaponry.

And on a serious note, Sargent..er Adam..whats Wrong with big guns?
What exactly is wrong with the firearms (incorrectly) described as
"Assault weapons"?

Very good question. I concede to the validity of your arguement at this
point, because when owned and used in the ways you're outlining, I would
imagine that these weapons are not a societal problem; certainly much
less than the smaller "household gun", which intended for defense is all
too often used to solve arguments, provide summary divorces, or a factor
in unfortunate accidents.

I realize as I type that most of what I'm bothered by regarding assault
weapons "on the streets" pertains to those individuals who are _illegal_
owners of the weaponry, rather than card-carrying NRA. My personal
experience with assault weapons is primarily from hearing and witnessing
urban violence, but that's not really going to be helped by gun
legislation, is it? I'll re-read the Kerry proposal again with this in
mind and rethink it. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you if you're
concern is that it deprives well-meaning citizens of their 2nd amendment
rights.

-Adam