Militia member 'filled with rage,' plotted ambush

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

[from occupied ga]

Do you have any tanks or fighter aircraft ?

This is relevant to gun control how?

[jmc813]

Okay, where are your family atomics ? Since you don't believe in any restrictions, where are your chemical, biological, and nuclear WMDs ? Where are your tactical and strategic air and naval wessels ?

The Second Amendment enumerates the right to keep and bear ARMS. The examples you mentioned are not arms. According to the Federalist Papers, "arms" can be defined as what the typical infantry soldier of any given time might carry. According to this definition, the Assault Weapons Ban is an unconstituional piece of garbage, and IMO there is simply nothing immoral about breaking it.

[r9etb]

I'm afraid the way the founding documents read, he has the right to stockpile, and the rest of us have to wait until he actually does something with it that we don't like.

He apparently did do something with it that we don't like. His "plan," and the fact that he was evidently working to carry it out, constitutes a conspiracy to commit murder.

[r9etb]

I didn't see "for the children" posted anywhere so I have no comment !

Got yer buzzword bingo cards laid out, I see....

But do you mean to tell me you don't have "JBT"?!?

[r9etb]

LOL!!! Somehow I think your friends don't understand your point....

[jmc813]

LOL!!! Somehow I think your friends don't understand your point....

His point is the same one used by gun-grabbers, confusing "arms" with "artillary" and "ordinance" be it intentional or not.

[TheCause]

Ditto to that.

[Squantos]

LMAO.......No but I have two extra "gun nut" cards ya wanna trade for your spare JBT card ...... ?;O)

Stay Safe !

[Dead Corpse]

Actually, during our war for Independance and the Civil War... field artillery was owned by private citizens. As were battleships complete with cannon batteries.

[r9etb]

Read his posts again. Instead of doing the standard knee-jerk reactionary "gun-grabbing JBT" dance (which makes you look stupid), why not consider whether he's trying to make a more subtle point, with which you might actually agree.

[Dead Corpse]

The Rockafellers, Bush's, and Kenndy's might be able to afford all the necessary equipement to make, and store, their own atomic weapons. The things are hideously expensive to maintain.

Of course, you aren't trying to make sense. You just wanna try and equate small arms ownership with weapons of mass destruction. You are only making yourself look like an idiot.

[af_vet_1981]

The Rockafellers, Bush's, and Kenndy's might be able to afford all the necessary equipement to make, and store, their own atomic weapons. The things are hideously expensive to maintain. Of course, you aren't trying to make sense. You just wanna try and equate small arms ownership with weapons of mass destruction.

Where in the Constitution does it say "small arms" ?

[af_vet_1981]

The Second Amendment enumerates the right to keep and bear ARMS. The examples you mentioned are not arms.

You already have two. Why do you want so many more ?

[jmc813]

Already have two what?

[Dead Corpse]

Also notice, I wasn't contending that the Constitution laid any prohibition on the ownership of larger scale weapons. It doesn't. That is my point. Since there is no Constitutional power for the FedGov to prohibit ownership, they have no power to regulate it either.

Or have you found that passage where they state they can decide what "arms" means?

Get a grip gun grabber.

[af_vet_1981]

Already have two what?

Arms!

Well, most of us do.

[af_vet_1981]

Also notice, I wasn't contending that the Constitution laid any prohibition on the ownership of larger scale weapons. It doesn't. That is my point. Since there is no Constitutional power for the FedGov to prohibit ownership, they have no power to regulate it either.

Yes, your position is there is no Constitutional power for the Federal government to restrict your access and use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

People who think like you are one reason we need gun control.

[af_vet_1981]

According to the Federalist Papers, "arms" can be defined as what the typical infantry soldier of any given time might carry.

That would be a reasonable definition if you then vetted or restricted the use of such weapons to non-criminals. Israel has both widespread access to weapons among trustworthy citizens and gun control.

[jmc813]

That would be a reasonable definition if you then vetted or restricted the use of such weapons to non-criminals.

Call me radical, but I disagree with that too. My opinion is that if someone is so dangerous that they should not own arms, they should not be released from prison.

[af_vet_1981]

Call me radical, but I disagree with that too. My opinion is that if someone is so dangerous that they should not own arms, they should not be released from prison.

That is a valid point, although it does not cover the spectrum of people I would want to restrict. Technology has advanced so far beyond the 1700s. Imagine a single company with automatic weapons and adequate supply would have done in the Revolutionary War.