Posted on 12/22/2006 8:46:39 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
SWAT teams are currently restricted to paint balls?
I'm pretty sure it has. Certainly civilians own anti tank cannon, .50 BMG M2 machine guns, and .30 caliber machine guns as well. Don't know for certain about an all up tank, but it would shock me to find that no one owned one.
All of the above can be seen, owned by civilians, which can be seen on a episode of "Mail Call" which I happened upon on "youtube" last night. (Can't find the link as it's blocked from here, but just search on "guns" on youtube).
"SWAT teams are currently restricted to paint balls?"
They'd like us to believe that. As for the mostly uniformed public, they would believe the statements that the liberal mayor made.
Oh, there are privately owned tanks, and at least one I've heard of that is licensed for on-road. But I think the weapons systems have been de-milled.
Why not a tank etc. If memory serves, much of the field artillery and naval guns were privately owned at the time of the Revolutionary war.
Excessive hyperbole alert!
"The AR-15 "has firepower that police do not have available to them, except in extraordinary circumstances,"
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Where do they find morons like this?
I've seen one left handed bolt action .270. Course it wasn't out of box, it was made from wood and metal up by a gunsmith friend of mine.
Other then that I've only seen ambi-dex pistols.
Sounds like I need to take my AR-15 out for a spin this weekend . . .
LOL! That's right.
Exactly right. Aside from the historical aspect, that's why I recently bought:
1903A3 Springfield
M-1 Carbine
M-1 Garand
M-1A
AR-15A2
They are really a hoot to shoot!
Semper Fi,
I am in monumental agreement with you there.
What a maroon. The AR-15 is an OK rifle. As was stated earlier, there are plenty of hunting rifles that are deadlier in terms that they have a greater impact and greater distance. The AR-15 is good for medium range and it is not as long (physically) as a hunting rifle, therefore good for street fighting. A good mix of distance and portability. I think just calling something an 'assault' weapon is misleading.
The NRA has to fight this stuff at every level.
Just about every firearm has a left handed model or doesn't need one since it's probably ambitextrous.
Even an AR-15.
Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.
However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.
Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.
If we don't constantly emphasize the constitutional reasons for the Second Amendment than we shall surely lose it, because hunting, while a worthy enterprise, is too trivial a reason to maintain it has a constitutional protection. We need to emphasize to our hunting bretheren that maintenance of the second amendment's constitutional rationale serves to protect their rights to continue to own firearms for hunting. The second amendment is literally the final check for the preservation of our republic from the depredations of untrammeled tyranny. We need to constantly remind the people what the militia in the 2nd amendment is REALLY for..... A citizen body organized for military purposes and by extension, logically equipped with weapons of military utility. Just consider that the founders of our nation had just finished defeating the greatest military power on the planet, thanks in no small part to a citizen militia, armed with military weapons such as the smooth bore Brown Bess musket, and often technologically superior rifled muskets. It is the height of absurdity to think that the second amendment in the Bill of Rights is primarily concerned with shooting bunny rabbits.
The second amendment is literally the final check for the preservation of our republic from the depredations of untrammeled tyranny.
Welcome to Massachusetts, where you need to pass an NRA Safety course, submit two references, pass a background check and get the town police chief's permission to carry Mace.
Class A licenses to carry are very hard to get in MA. It's up to the sole discretion of your town's police chief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.