Militia member 'filled with rage,' plotted ambush

The Grand Rapids Press ^ | Friday, October 17, 2003 | Ed White

[Freemeorkillme]

It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad.

Amen and amen! This was the founding father's intent as most of you well know. Not some finch-plinking notion that I can hunt to eat(though, this also false under basic human rights).

[Freemeorkillme]

"false" should be "falls"....

[tpaine]

Tell it to our sunshine patriots on this thread, who agree with state & federal registrations & infringments..

FR is becoming infested with them.

[Joe Brower]

"Do you then agree a government has a valid interest in keeping some arms out of the hands of it's citizens?"

There are limits to every thing. Even the power of government supposedly. The problem stems from the fact that terms like "valid interest" and "arms" get defined by those who don't want to see the public they supposedly serve armed with so much as a peashooter, while they enjoy taxpayer-funded protection of a very high degree.

It's a fox-guarding-the-henhouse scenario, and the double standards espoused by the ruling elite do not inspire trust.

[Who is John Galt?]

I wonder if the 2nd Amendment had anti-aircraft weapons in mind?

The Japanese Arisaka Type 99 bolt-action rifle of 1939 was fitted with anti-aircraft sights, which obviously qualify the rifle as an "anti-aircraft weapon." And every other bolt-action rifle in the world is 'functionally equivalent.'

I used to live in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. I know you don't mean to, but you remind me of Diane ("Mr. & Mrs. America, turn 'em all in!") Feinstein.

;>)

[oldfart]

"Besides, where can i go local to test them. I have 4 whiny daughters that won't last more than an hour with pullin the others hair out, so NYC is probably as far as i can go."

After that last ALCS game, there are a lot of Bostonians who might think NYC would be a good place to start.

[El Gato]

Crosshairs on Bush and Rumsfeld? Sounds pretty indefensible to me.

Comes under the first amendment, same as burning flags. Some gun ranges won't let you shoot at pictures of people, the one I belong to sells them. :) Although they do chose more appropriate objects for their "lead commnetary", like Saddam, Osama, Muamar, etc.

[El Gato]

So, do you suppose this gentleman had been issued a "Letter of Marque" by Congress?

No, but the letter of marque gives you the authority to use the cannon on your ships, the second amendment protects your right to keep them. Cannon were a "long lead time" piece of equipment, as were the ships to mount them on, although the latter not quite so much so.

[El Gato]

I say I should have the right to thermonuclear wepaons under the 2nd ammendment.

Do you have the means to buy one? Even the Russian surplus ones come pretty steep, and are of more than questionable reliability.

[Tench_Coxe]

Well, in the time when cannon were considered the ultimate in military firepower, there were private cannon in the colonies.
When men-of-war dominated the seas, converted, private sloops, armed with cannon, sailed out to face them.
When the Brown Bess was considered the ultimate infantry weapon, farmers soon gathered arms of equal lethality to return the Brwon Bess' ball.

[Cultural Jihad]

Somerville said: "The people will have their day. ... There's a quiet civil war going on in the country."

Down with kooks and kookery!

[El Gato]

All are normal sporting firearms, with the exception of the Sharps carbine, which was military issue...

None fall into any category likely to be affected by any bans.

If any of them have, or can accept, scopes, they'll soon be "sniper rifles" and that big old Sharps can transmorgify into a "cannon" when reported by the likes of this "reporter". If they can say that anything over .50 has "no sporting purpose" why not .40? And then there goes your Sharps.

[Cultural Jihad]

Is Norman on the left or the right?

[Poohbah]

I was wondering what Norman's FR screen name is.

[Poohbah]

Well, in the time when cannon were considered the ultimate in military firepower, there were private cannon in the colonies.

OK.

So you're saying that there's a 2nd Amendment right to high-yield strategic nuclear weapons?

I don't think those can be reasonably used in self-defense in a manner that doesn't violate the right of others to the quiet enjoyment of their liberty and property...

[Poohbah]

Even the Russian surplus ones come pretty steep, and are of more than questionable reliability.

They cost less than a top-end Ferrari.

[Poohbah]

I say I should have the right to thermonuclear wepaons under the 2nd ammendment.

OK: please detail how to use one in legitimate case of self-defense or the defense of others from imminent harm...

...that does NOT massively violate the right of others to the quiet enjoyment of their liberty and property.

[tpaine]

Down with kooks and kookery!
151 -CJ-

---

If FR enforced that standard, I know two bozos that wouldn't be here long..

[Poohbah]

If FR enforced that standard, I know two bozos that wouldn't be here long..

Yourself and MurryMom?

[Cultural Jihad]

Would be a fun experiment to change "Norman Somerville" to "Nuwasid Somiryya" and leave the rest of the story the same and see how the replies change.

The anti-America and anti-self-governance rants wouldn't change much at all.