First amendment in danger

[Barrett]

Mike's thread prompted me to recall a conversation with a lady I used to know several years ago. She felt that violence in books, either historical or fictional, was a bad influence and should be, well, you know...regulated.
She was a LIBRARIAN.
You can only imagine how she felt about motion picture 1st Amendment rights.
I read a couple reviews of "Gettysburg" and "Saving Pvt Ryan" in which the reviewers criticized the films for "too much violence." Ho-lee smokes...we don't like the world depicted realistically so let's change its representation and ergo we'll change reality.
Much as the 1st is abused, I'm willing to accept the abuse if for no other reason than helping provide a reality check against comfortable complacency.
It looks as if in our lifetime that the American people will decide whether they'll be comfortable...or free.

I may be mistaken so any knowledgeable person out there is welcome to correct me (they will at any rate but I think the argument that it should be illegal for the general population to have MACHINEGUNS is a red herring.

If I remember correctly, it IS illegal for most americans to own fully automatic machineguns.

I believe one needs a Federal Firearms Dealer license of some sort in order to own a fully automatic weapon. Fully automatic weapons are tightly controlled by the govt.

The tec 9s, AKS's etc sold to the populace are SEMI automatic versions of their military cousins.

Regards,

MDD

oops,

Where you read 'AKS' kindly substitute 'SKS'

hehe

MDD

[mike_baram]

Michael,
The bandying about of the terms "automatic" and "semi-automatic" can cause dizzy spells in the most normal of crania. Except for full-fledged machine guns, every hand-held automatic is also a semi-automatic. It just depends which position the safety is. If one pull of the trigger can fire multiple rounds, it's automatic. If one pull fires one bullet, it's semi-automatic (assuming that the action also positions the next bullet for firing).
As far as I'm concerned, the only weapon that doesn't fit either description is one that can only hold one round, and has to be re-loaded, or have the bullet chambered by operating the bolt for each shot. That includes Springfield 1903s, and flintlock muskets.
Regards,
Mike

Mike,

Understood. What I was trying to express (not all that clearly) was that the automatic weapons such as M16s, AK47s, etc. when used in the military have both automatic and semi automatic capabilities depending upon where one places the selector switch.

The versions legally sold to civilians have ONLY semi automatic capabilities just like a semi automatic pistol.

I think there are some very narrow exceptions to this rule permitting some dealers to possess fully automatic weapons.

Thus when someone claims we are legally selling machineguns ( i.e. fully automatic weapons) to the public on a wide scale he is either making the honest mistake you referred to or is consciously using misleading terminology to advance his point of view.

The accepted custom of calling semi automatic handguns 'automatic' tends to confuse matters even more.

Regards,

MDD

[Shooter]

Get a grip, gang..."assault weapon" = Bad...define "A" as "B" and you can make X = Y, up = down, black = white, good = bad, and "I-dunno-know" as "anything-you-wanna-be."

Words gotta mean SOMETHING!

ESAD to all the wanna-be liberals. For all others, reap what you sow!

In previous posts, devil's advo said:

<<the average joe americans right to own a MACHINE GUN might not have been what the founding fathers had in mind>>

<<I dispute your constitutional right to a MACHINE GUN for any reason>>

He also indirectly refers to a civilian TEK 9 when he mentions MACHINE GUNs.

IS HE CORRECT WHEN HE REFERS TO SUCH CIVILIAN WEAPONS AS MACHINE GUNS OR IS HE EXAGGERATING??

I think he is either mistaken or exaggerating when he implies we are buying and selling MACHINE GUNS wholesale in the US.



I suppose we all, liberal, conservative, and methodist, eventually reap what we sow.

ESAD:
We all eventually die as well.

Eating @#$%, on the other hand, is a matter of personal taste. I guess. I'll pass


VBR,

MDD

[stephen]

<<the average joe americans right to own a MACHINE GUN might not have been what the founding fathers had in mind>>

<<I dispute your constitutional right to a MACHINE GUN for any reason>>

I'm going to get blasted for this, but its the truth whether we like it or not... so here goes. George Mason, writer of the Second Amendment in the fall of 1791, and the founders who ratified it fully intended for each of us to have full access to all hand held, single man military arms. I make no moral interpretation of this; I simply am observing truth.

Even the leftist Supreme Court has backed this position on multiple occasions, and a recent federal court decision (Emerson vs. US) in Texas. Supreme Court, 1939, US vs. Miller. Probably the most damning decision to date for Second Amendment hackers, and certainly the most misrepresented. In reference to possession of a sawed-off shotgun being under the protection of the Second Amendment, the court ruled that "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Therefore, for a weapon to have Second Amendment protection, it must have a military application. Such as fully automatic hand held machine guns, hand grenades, high capacity magazines, large caliber assault weapons? Now, of course, the Second Amendment hackers are worse off than when they started. The ruling further defined the milita as ANY male physically capable of serving in a defense capacity, and those militia men were obligated to supply their OWN military type arms when service was required, implicitly making ownership of fully military arms not only legal but a necessity.

Sorry. That's the way it is. For those of you who don't like it, I would suggest repealing the amendment rather than deliberately violating it.

I've been through this a number of times, so I'll warn you in advance... the more you try to research the Second Amendment, the deeper you dig your own hole. If the Second Amendment hackers were smart, they'd align themselves with the NRA (who still support background checks and oppose automatic weapons) and count your blessings.

The hysterical response line starts here. Those with nasty personal attacks please line up on the left.

I'm not about to put a hysterical response,Stephen, or argue "semi" semantics back&forth. I see that, however,most of you(and you can keep your firearms,please!!!)choose to accept, ultimately, through whatever Constitutional or otherwise means, that the firepower to kill multiple people rapidly, that is in fact out there is PERFECTLY OK. .....all very well if YOU dont see the victims, or know them personally.The news is=not all the victims are criminals themselves. So I ask, how much "collateral damage" are we to accept in the US before one acknowledges a problem with the generally available firepower? I dont claim to know the solution to that.Its the lack of constructive ideas& rigid denial that there is a problem at all that gets me. And it seems to me one can list several killing weapons that only(mostly) are in the hands of the military, that the public does not have access to, and do not fill our ER's with victims..so a modicum of regulation is in fact possible at least. A special note to John L= lets see...using Karl Marx as a bugbear to imply Communist leanings; using "intellectual" as an epithet....sounds like 1933 Germany again! I'll even throw you a bone- I 'm an "Untermensch" too!

Well, just my 2pf without walking through the whole discussion...

>David Horowitz recently wrote a column for
>Salon Magazine in which he dared to criticize
>the NAACP for its intent to sue gun
>manufacturers.

Thats his right. As I understand the situation, nobody tried to imprison him for it...

>In response, Jack E. White, a columnist for
> Time Magazine, wrote a column in which he
> labeled Horowitz as a "bigot".......

Isn´t that his right too, protected by the first amendment?

>an obvious attempt to shut Horowitz up
?
Has he demanded that Horowitz is not to be published anywhere by law?

> and destroy his reputation.
Well, if he uses arguments then I cannot think of anything wrong with it. IF there ARE arguments that destroy his reputation, then he should not have one. I would only understand you posting if he uses unfair methods to destroy his reputation, like saying that he abuses kids without proof or something on this line...

Actually I think that the whole thing has nothing to do with the first amendment, nor with WWI aviation. Its just that some people go up like a rocket when somebody dares to threaten the second amendment.