Weapons question for don

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archive Thru March 2002: Archive thru February 2002:Weapons question for don
By Admin on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 11:11 am: Edit

this thread will be moved due to size ...

By Baz on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 09:52 am: Edit

I think we encourage our government to treat us the way they do by not stopping them. Tacit consent is a powerful tool. When we don't stand up, don't fight, we atrophy. Our rights get eroded and we do nothng, so it erodes more. erosion will eventually turn a mountain into a plain, geographically, and our rights into prisons if we allow it.
Many claim that our best president was lincoln. To a constitutionalist, he was the worst. He attacked the southern states for doing what they had a right to do, he suspended the constitutional right to habeas corpus, and he conducted military tribunals for crimes charged against american citizens...
he did a lot of other things like that. I can't say that I'm sad those things happened, but I can't say that I'm happy either. I hate the idea that it could happen again, but it was a revolution...

By Pablo on Monday, February 25, 2002 - 12:27 am: Edit

Pan, I don't know any thing about the comapany, but a gun store nerby where i live is selling firestorm .45's for about 250 dollars. If that wasnt enough, while I was there, a guy brought one in that had a part breakage. He had fired it twice (he claimed) and since the gun was purchased a few weeks before the store repaired it for free.
Still, Im not saying its bad. I refuse to speculate since I dont know enough about the company.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, February 24, 2002 - 01:32 am: Edit

"One of the basic problems with government is that they seem to think that they OWN the people that they govern."

Indeed, but how much do we encourage this? Should we serve our government our should our government serve us? Do we behave as subjects or citizens?

I believe Kennedy got it wrong with "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". He should have said " ask not what you can do for your government, ask what your government can do for you".

A country is nothing more than a part of the planet with an artificial political boundary drawn around it, a country is therefore defined by its government.


By Don_Walsh on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 06:40 pm: Edit

Dear Sic

My father was a high school teacher, who sold World Book in summertime. Two of his brothers were Jesuits. So, what can I tell ya?

I'm too young to have met Macarthur but I did meet Jack Singlaub. (Who commanded US forces in S.Korea and was relieved by Carter for disagreeing over policy.)

I studied political science as well as chemistry.

And when I don't know something that seems interesting, I take the time to find out about it.

And I still have a good memory.

By Etienne on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 05:04 pm: Edit

One of the basic problems with government is that they seem to think that they OWN the people that they govern.

By Mr_Rabid on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 02:29 pm: Edit

"This will be made much easier when our nervous systems are extracted from our bodies, and we can live out our lives in nutrient fluid tanks, hooked to the internet."

Exactly! So far none of my 'volunteers' has lived more than 45 minutes, but I'm working hard.

By Pan on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 02:23 pm: Edit

"Hey don, do you know anything about Firestorm, a small arms manufacturer in argentina?"

Poor Baz . . . didn't know what he was starting . . .

By Anatomist on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 02:17 pm: Edit

"Maybe the idea of states, nations, etc has passed it's prime and we need new, perhaps nongeographic, organizing principles? "

This will be made much easier when our nervous systems are extracted from our bodies, and we can live out our lives in nutrient fluid tanks, hooked to the internet.

By Sicboy13 on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Don, I havent the yarbles to rap with you yet, or the noggin either, I was, however, impressed with your knowledge on the several things I've read in the threads. It's to bad some people take this forum a little too serious tho. I did at first, then got a heads up from a local who showed me the way. You know who you are, much up's my peoples.(interpretation to English...To those who've helped, I thank you. smartass me!) sic

By Mr_Rabid on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 12:39 pm: Edit

The thing that bugs me here is the freedom vs strength problem.

If states rights were absolute, for instance, and Texas could invade Louisianna if they felt like it, we would be easy meat for any other imperialist nation, and each other. It would be ugly.

Extending the principle, if tyranny is not practiced at all, you have no nation whatsoever, and the state evaporates.

State's rights? What about county rights? Town? House? Outhouse?

But the idea that the government should have control over it's citizens, whether they like it or not (upon pain of death for any real defiance) pisses me off.

I don't think it's a matter of where you draw the line- I think the entire problem needs rethinking.

Maybe the idea of states, nations, etc has passed it's prime and we need new, perhaps nongeographic, organizing principles?

By Sicboy13 on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 12:19 pm: Edit

Not to get off the subject, but Don, did you eat a fuckin' set of encyclopedia's at some point? Just sayin'....you know lots of stuff, do you ever read any of the "Uncle John's Bathroom Readers" series? I find out shit I never even knew I wanted to know in there. Respectfully, Sicboy

By Don_Walsh on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 12:14 pm: Edit


Ask Gen.Douglas Macarthur (viz Harry Truman)

Ask Gen.John Singlaub (viz Jimmy Carter)

When the civilian control of the military has frayed it hasn't frayed in favor of the politicians.

By Don_Walsh on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 12:10 pm: Edit

It's not really a matter of being able to overthrow the government, except in principle.

It's more a matter of, when the government is afraid of its own citizens being armed, it's time to be afraid of the government.

The Tory side (and there was one, during the American Revolution, especially in New York) basically said, We can't win against the BRITISH ARMY so why bother?

They guessed wrong.

The Irish Republicans (and I mean the whole Republican movement for centuries) bet they could do the same, against all odds, and damned if they haven't done so. First in the south and now in the north.

But as to USA, no one expects Billy-Bob and his bumpkins to get anywhere. But then, the USG hasn't become obnoxious enough for sufficient people to care. If and when they do, tsk tsk if the second amendment is not intact.

By Pan on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 12:09 pm: Edit

I decided I'd address the two things in different posts:


You raise a neat point: the citizen-soldier. We have now a large, professional army. This is what the republicans (small "r") were afraid of. They thought this would lead to a professional officer class who did not feel beholden to the masses, but rather their superiors in government.

I don't know to what extent this has actually happened in the US armed forces; maybe Don could answer?


By Pan on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 12:04 pm: Edit


He didn't perform the survey's he cited. He also said that the EU's GENESIS is in the desire to build consensus and do things to increase economic advantages. Hence, the trade treaties that form the core. Interestingly, he left open the possibility that the EU has taken on a life of its own (he even goes so far as to suggest this is the case by citing the survey's). He specifically mentioned, and I apologize if I didn't say it in the last post, that the skyrocketing unemployment that happened after the 50's and 60's did nothing to hurt the legitimacy of the nation-states, and thus the governments find themselves now sitting pretty AND having a big supranational entity.

Unfortunately, I don't have the book handy, or I could tell you the date and polling company that did the survey.


By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 11:56 am: Edit

And when Billy-Bob and the boys overthrow the government of the USA what will you get then? A new set of corrupt bastards to run the country and feather their own nests. So why bother going to all that effort?


By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 11:49 am: Edit


One thing to bear in mind is that unemployment rates in the UK are much lower than in most of the pro-federalist European nations. The EU does nothing to reduce unemployment. As for most Europeans thinking of their 'Europeanness' being as important to them as their nationality, he's talking horseshit. This guy has obviously spent too much time in Brussels surrounded by starry-eyed federalists. I've yet to meet any European who when asked his nationality replies "European" and in the UK most people would cut their own tongue out before saying such a thing. Even in the Republic of Ireland, one of the most pro-EU European states, I've never heard anyone describe themselves as being of Euroean nationality either. The EU saving the Nation State? BOLLOCKS!

The EU is a costly, inefficient invention run by politicians for politicians with the ordinary people of Europe having no say in who is appointed to the positions of power. It's not a democratic form of future government, it's an expensive, wasteful, unacountable quango. It doesn't deserve the power it already has, let alone give it more power.


By Mr_Rabid on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 11:25 am: Edit

"Is your country not run by the people for the people? "


Our country is run like everybody else's: By the bastards. Corruption is the norm.

As far as Billy Bob and the boys, if the government ever got *that* bad, don't forget that soldiers are citizens too. Billy Bob and the boys might well have a defected unit or three from the army on their side.

By Pan on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 09:56 am: Edit

The EU is an interesting beast. There is a gent, whose name I presently forget, who wrote a book on it which I liked. The arugment was that European Federalism is not a negation of the Nation-State, but rather a desparate, last-ditch attempt to save it.

He discusses the "Growth of European Federalism Sentiment" thesis, as well as the "Technical Regulation" thesis, and finds them very wanting.

He rather proposes that in order to keep the political coalitions that granted legitimacy (in the form of numbers of votes) to the governments of Western Europe, the W.E. nations felt the need to take actions to conitnue to keep the economic conditions opitmal (low unemployment, etc, which was the case in the late fifties and early sixties). From this need, the EU system we currently know grew in lurches.

He also goes on to say that now, with European unemployment rates far from impressive, the nations are finding that they can maintain their coalitions without the EU. He wonders in his postscript whether the EU will continue to assume increasing powers, or whether it will continue at it's present configuration.

He notes that it is unlikely to dissolve, as most citizens in member states seem to consider themselves nationals and Europeans with very similar sentiment (understandably so, when memebership in the EU grants EU member citizens certain rights to sue their governments and employers).


By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 01:58 am: Edit


"Perhaps a society in which government officials are given room and board, and perhaps a little spending money. And forbidden to make money otherwise during thier terms, or accept gifts of any kind."

The only problem 'no-salary' politicians is that this used to be the case in Britain many years ago. What then happened was that the people who became politicians were those from excessively wealthy families who had so much money that they wouldn't notice if they spent a few years (or decades) with no salary. Therefore you didn't have politicians that were representative of the people who elected them.

The problem is that sure you can stop paying them or stop them receiving gifts but their main motivation is the power entrusted to them and how do you stop them using this to benefit themselves in the future when they step down from office? It's not so much about benefits to them during their term but the benefits that follow when their term finishes.

I also think that putting a moderate legal maximum on the amount any Presidential candidate can spend on an election campaign would be a benefit. This would make it more accessible to people other than those from rich family dynasties.


By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 01:42 am: Edit

In order to oppose any government with arms you've got to be pretty damn sure you're going to win. A civilian militia army take on and overthrow the government of the USA? I know on which side I'd place my bet and it wouldn't be with Billy-Bob and his boys holed up in a bunker in Tennessee.

You do live in a democracy don't you? Should you not use your voting power to keep your governments in line? Do you need to hold a gun under the table as well? Is your country not run by the people for the people? If the people don't want gun control then so be it. If the people want gun-control then so be that also. Do you keep a gun just in case a democratic law is passed to take your gun away and you'll use your gun to prevent the democratic wishes of the people taking effect? Or is it a case of agreeing with democracy so long as democracy agrees with you?


By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 01:22 am: Edit


"For defense alliances, I think it's better to have one bigass army than lots of little ones"

Defense considerations are not at all a motivation as far as the EU federal formation is concerned. One of the key EU nations , i.e. France is not a member of Nato and Ireland as well as not being a member of NATO has always been neutral with regard to any conflicts outside its own borders. The formation of the so called 'European Defense Force' is a political attempt to eventually try to remove NATO (i.e. American control) from the equation.

"But what about the economic vulnerability? The money is what is driving the EU."

Yes but where is the EU's money coming from? It's coming from tax-payers Germany, France and the UK. The taxpayers of these nations pay in much more than they get back while the other member nations take out more than they pay in. Smaller nations do well economicaly from the EU while the larger nations get screwed. If Britain pulled out of the EU then who would benefit financially and who would lose?

"economic stimulus package..."

Indeed Britain is paying for the economic stimulus package for smaller nations and as more Eastern European Nations are welcomed into the EU fold this bill to the British taxpayer will get even higher. So who is benefiting from any economic stimulus package and who is losing from it?

"...so your little backwards nation will wither and die and you all gonna be po folks. Cause the will use trade incentives and sanctions to make you that way."

Britain has enough trade links with Commonwealth nations and the USA to survive and thrive without having to spend its taxpayers money funding the development of weak and developing European nations.

"But economically- multiple currencies, taxation systems etc produce inherent inefficiencies that drag each nation down a bit. So they will be crushed by some federal state without those inefficiencies at some point."

The EU is a staggeringly inefficient organisation. It runs on greed, corruption, waste, excessive bureaucracy, back-handers and the Brussels Gravy-train. Bigger does not always mean more efficient. A nation like Britain can run its affairs much more efficiently out of the EU. (The only reason I can think of why the Germans are so EU-federalist is that they think that since they are such an organised bunch the EU will be handed over to Germany to run).

The above points are all good arguments put forward by those opposed to further EU federalism and I agree with some of these points more than others.

However my own main concern with EU Federalism is that it removes any real decision making power from individual nations. A nations own elected government will no longer have the power to fix, taxes, interest rates, public service spending levels, benefits etc. in line with the needs of the nation and the wishes of the electorate. The EU is not controlled by elected repesentatives, power lies with the un-elected European Commission, the European Central Bank and the European Court. The EU is not democratic and the wielders of EU power are not accountable to European tax-payers.

The elected European Parliament is a facade, a wsate of time, a con to give voters the impression of democracy, a toothless talking shop made up of politicians who have failed to get themselves even elected in National elections (or usually even failed to get selected selected by their local constituency branch as their Party's candidate for National elections). Those chosen by as Euro-MP candidates are usually failed wannabe politicians who have been put on Euro-MP candidate list by the National Party central-office as a reward for many years of bum-licking the Party hierarchy and as a consolation prize for not being able to become a politician at home.

Until the EU can organise itself on democratic lines and be fully accountable to the people it is supposed to serve (i.e. European taxpayers) then it is best for Britain to keep it at arm's length and avoid deeper involvement.


By Pan on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 09:04 pm: Edit

Yuh know, I was going to talk a bit about the Supreme Court, Jackson, and the Cherokees . . . but, honestly, I don't feel like it.

I want a cookie.

By _Blackjack on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 05:09 pm: Edit


Blackjack, all true; but I don't believe that women or freedmen (former slaves or former indentured servants) were prohibited from owning firearms -- not on any constutional basis anyway.

I didn't mean that. I just meant that the framers weren't particularly concerned with the rights of women and blacks one way or the other, and tended to ignore them. Until the 15th and 19th ammendments, any reference to "the people" was assumed to mean "the white, male people".

By Mr_Rabid on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Todays Attempt At A Better World:

Perhaps a society in which government officials are given room and board, and perhaps a little spending money. And forbidden to make money otherwise during thier terms, or accept gifts of any kind.

By Pikkle on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 04:55 pm: Edit

It's all about greed... there is never a government without the backing of money, or at least not for long...

By Mr_Rabid on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Well, if a group of people dislike their government enough to take steps to remove it...

Perhaps the government should be a regular guy and step the fuck down?

Why should anyone have to get shot for chrissakes?

If it gets to that point, and the government is actually willing to kill it's citizenry to stay in power, well, what is the point?

I think holding on to power for it's own sake is an ugly, stupid thing to do. If the governed do not find your governance acceptable, then do your best to make the transition to the new gubmint graceful.

And go live on the beach somewhere writing your memiors.

By Don_Walsh on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 04:17 pm: Edit

The problem with opposing any government with arms is that losers will be seditionists and traitors; winners will live to praise the second amendment.

Ever see "Shogun?" When Blackthorne appears before Togugawa (they used another name but that's who he was, just as Blackthorne was the historical Will Adams...) the Jesuit translator mentioned that the English were allies of Holland the the Dutch were in rebellion against their lawful liege in Spain.

Tokugawa said "Is this true?"

Blackthorne started to explain and demurr, Tokugawa said "There is no excuse for rebellion against one's liege lord."

Blackthorne said "Unless you win."

Silence, stony silence. Then Tokugawa cracked up. "Yes, you have named the one condition that justifies rebellion!"

By Baz on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 04:06 pm: Edit

It's more than just a right to bear arms issue, though. It's a right to bear what kind of arms issue. Pro gun-control people will say, "okay, we can't take away your guns. Here, take a musket, that's what they meant." But a musket would be of little use to overcome an oppresive government. The intent I refer to is the reason that the right to bear arms is so important. If that right is simply for getting dinner, or for killing "snakes an' sutch" then a musket may be good enough. I personally prefer to hunt with black powder, since most of the drunk yahoos around here don't and it makes the woods infinitely safer. If the right is to defend against a federal or state government run amuck then no a flintlock isn't enough. Is a rifle? In the right hands, perhaps.

This is the point where constitutional scholars begin turning red and throwing punches, and this is where we can never find a true answer. At what point does the right to defend against a government with a trained army stop? flamethrower? f-16? (on a personal note, warplanes are not as restricted as weapons, I don't think. Right here in podunk, KY, is a mig privately owned and sitting in a hangar)

So what blackjack said is correct in a literal sense, but the application is where it gets fuzzy like a ferret butt.

pardon me, all, but it is 7:00 and as you can see I'm still at the office. I have three bottles of fairy love juice at home, and I'm going to see if I can turn that into two bottles by tomorrow.

By Mr_Rabid on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 04:03 pm: Edit

I think that a Nato-esque alliance would solve the military vulnerability inherent in a weak federal, strong state system.

But what about the economic vulnerability? The money is what is driving the EU.

Sure, you can have your rights as a sovereign state, but then you can't get your membership badge, decoder ring, or economic stimulus package, so your little backwards nation will wither and die and you all gonna be po folks.

Cause the will use trade incentives and sanctions to make you that way.

For defense alliances, I think it's better to have one bigass army than lots of little ones... but you can get around that.

But economically- multiple currencies, taxation systems etc produce inherent inefficiencies that drag each nation down a bit. So they will be crushed by some federal state without those inefficiencies at some point.

Does anybody have any ideas on how to get around that one?

By Don_Walsh on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Blackjack, all true; but I don't believe that women or freedmen (former slaves or former indentured servants) were prohibited from owning firearms -- not on any constutional basis anyway. While the second amendment might specifically protect white males (in its original intent) as members of the militia, the only ay the constitution could deny the same right to women and freedmen would have been to explicitly so state, and of course it doesn't.

There does not appear to be any constitutional quarrel with the right of the Congress, or even the administrative right of the Executive, to pass laws or promulgate regulations denying the right to own firearms to several classes of people, e.g., convicted felons, the mentally ill, drug users, illegal aliens, persons under indictment for felonies, fugitives, etc. The drug user one is particularly vague but fortunately ATF seems to find that one the hardest to try to make stick.

By Don_Walsh on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 03:39 pm: Edit

The EU is creeping federalism, that was foisted off on Europe originally as a coal, steel and atomic union (federation) only. All the other apparatus of the emerging European federal state has been grafted onto that. To many this is about as palatable as anything else that creeps: a traffic jam, an ice age, a snake.

As to the US it seems few of you (lawyers excepted) have studied constitutional law or the history of the Supreme Court.

Furthermore I seem to recall taking a solemn oath, a few times, to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. I think many or most of us who have taken such an oath would take exception of some of the trivializing remarks offered here about the mutability of the Constitution. The interprepatation of the Constitution is the solemn office of the SCOTUS and nobody else (of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the 'Supremes' make the law of the land.) They can and do tell Presidents to go suck wind -- even the same President who appointed them.

The amending of the Constitution is a difficult exercise and was deliberately designed that way.

The issue of states' rights has always been contentious. Take the whole 'distanhce selling' issue. The various states do not wish to continue losing sales tax revenues to out of state mail order and now e-commerce vendors, so are trying to force the vendors to collect sales tax for them. It's estimated than any US mail order house selling nationwide has to spend $25,000 a year administering sales tax for each state (probably only each state that has reared up and bit them.) The obvious extrapolation is a $1.25 Million overhead for 50 states, enough to bury most mail order firms. Now, clearly this behavior on the part of the several states is unconstitutional, and it will be eventually barred by SCOTUS one of these days. The states are already lobbying the Feds to COLLECT THE SALES TAX NATIONALLY AND DISTRIBUTE IT BACK TO THE STATES. Now, that's going to end up biting the greedy little buggers in the revenue departments in the ass, because you can see what will happen. What the Feds collect the Feds will want to wax acquisitve over, first with some overhead costs, then with strings attached about state compliance with various federal bullshit, the bottom line being further and further state dependence on the withered and drooping hoary old federal tit. (As we used to call it in Washington.)

Just as a recent example, try taking to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida about that state's right to decide how to count its citizens' ballots in order to select electors. The Florida court got a little high and mighty, and SCOTUS had to remind them what it means to be high and mighty. (Not to start a wrangle over Bush v.Gore again, I am not arguing the merits or the law, I am just saying, state's rights didn't count for much.

"Woe to the Republic!" -- Wednesday Addams

By _Blackjack on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 03:39 pm: Edit

The intent of the framers, where the second ammendment is concerned, is not at all vague because they did us the service of writing about it extensively. There is no question that they intended it to prevent the federal government from keeping private citizens from owning arms. They also dd not intend for the federal government to maintain a large standing army in peacetime, and if you read the Constitution, they are still prohibited from funding a standing army for a period of more than 2 years.

Now, how this intention applies to modern circumstances is debatable, but their original intention is anything but obscure. They wanted a country where the (white, male) citizens had the right to own firearms.

By Mr_Rabid on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 01:16 pm: Edit

It's largely a question of strength when it comes to states rights vs federal.

The stronger your federal government is, the better chance you have to take and defend territory and your interests.

The trade off is the flavor of facism... that is, there must be uniformity in outlook, at least on important issues, and action etc.

Prohibition in the US is a good example of that. Several states didn't want anything to do with that- but the fed said 'tough titty' and sent the G-men round with their axes and tommy guns. Because it was decided that booze was bad for America, dammit, and fuck you, Tennesee, if you don't see it that way.

Take the EU- the fact that there even is an EU shows how attractive this idea is.

As time passes, the lawmakers in the EU will strive to make every member state tow the line. Eventually the EU will either collapse or it will resemble the federal government of the US.

Right now they are debating whether or not 'internet hate speech' should be against the law in all of Europe, not just Germany and France.

By Baz on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 12:34 pm: Edit

To elaborate further-
The constitution and the federal government were not put together to create a DEA or ATF or CIA or anything along those lines. The people were without a federal government. Each state was an entity unto itself, defending another state only if it was by agreement or to protect its own interests until the revolution. After the revolution, some wanted to remain a "loose confederacy" of individual states and groups of states. Others wanted a federal government to bind the states to one another. In order to accomplish a federal government, it had to be understood that only limited powers would be vested at the federal level. The constitution was an agreement amongst the states, by which they agreed to cede some of their powers to the federal government to create a stronger country. THE STATES and the people of those states granted such power to the gov. through the constitution. And any power not specifically given to the new fed government was retained by the states.

My take? Under no circumastance can the federal government take away our guns. That power was not specifically granted by the constitution. To me the difficult question is,"what about the state's power to take our guns?" Again, this is just my take. Better scholars than I ever was cannot give you THE answer.

I don't know of Franklin ever defining essential liberty; I THINK the liberties defined in the bill of rights would make a good starting point. His statement was probably meant to be non-specific. The willingness to give up one freedom is a slippery slope and the loss of that freedom will always lead to the loss of others. Thus a flippant attitude toward one freedom is a flippant attitude toward all freedom.

By Baz on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Pan makes good points. A lot of the constitution was intentionally left vague, for two reasons. 1) Many of the framers felt that, since the constitution was supposed to stand the test of time, it would have to evolve with society. Thus, some things need to be interpreted with the eyes of that society. 2) Some aspects could not be agreed on specifically. As a result, the parts that could be agreed on were ratified, and thus parts that were specific were left out or left ambiguous to satisfy all parties.
Again, the main theme was to unite the country and let the people govern themselves. The goal was never to have a government that was "us versus them", but again utopia cannot exist. It was us vs them from day one. They wanted a government that would allow all people to be totally free (I guess with the exception of slaves) yet, they understood that in order for government to be instituted, "the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers" (John Jay, Federalist No. 2) So let them govern themselves, thus they have to cede as little natural rights as possible.
We do not achieve self governance to a certain degree, because even though we chose a representative to vote for us, he/she does not always vote for things we want. One person in a congressional seat cannot vote for everything I want, no matter how much we agree on. The solution?
We have to cede that power to our government, until such time as we can elect another representative that will satisfy us better. But as I said before, the goal was always to cause the least intrusion possible by government into the citizen's life.
On the weapons issue, even the best of constitutional scholars scratch their heads. But it makes a fun and neverending discussion topic!

I'm getting verclempt-
Discuss amongst yourselves

By Pan on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 11:43 am: Edit

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The positioning of comma's in this sentence and the use of the word "Arms", as well as the insertion of the conditional clauses, makes this a grammatically ambiguous sentence. While I do not deny that it is justifiable to interpret this as meaning that the right to own guns shall not be restricted in any way, it also allows for the interpretation that the people shall be allowed to bear arms under the restriction that they are doing so in a well regulated militia.

I also remind you of the First and Tenth Ammendments do not necessarily apply only to individuals. The clause against Established Religions simply says that CONGRESS may not establish a religion. Many states continued with established religions well into the Federal government, most notably Massachusetts. Thus it ensured to the states the right to hold their established religions, as well as to the people not to be taxed federally for church coffers.

The Tenth Ammendment gives primacy of place to the rights States when it says that powers not granted to the federal government nor explicitly denied to the States "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, the argument that runs something to the effect that all the other clauses of the Bill of Rights are to protect individual liberties, therefore we may assume the Second also has the purpose is a hair bit disengenuous.

It is *not* as clear cut as all that.

I fall back on something said earlier: the Constitution is a living document. It is open to interpretation and implementation as each generation sees fit. It relies on the principle of the ability of men to govern themselves. It is to be looked upon with respect and reverence as establishing a working start for that self-governance. It is not Scripture, and if the majority of the people dislike the rules, they as self-governing people have the right to peacefully alter them to their liking.

Eep. Am I talking again?


By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 10:51 am: Edit


What is 'liberty' and what is 'essential liberty' then. Did Benjamin Franklin ever give his definition of what are 'essential liberties'?

The right to smoke a joint, shoot up some heroin, smoke crack, own a gun, abortion, euthanasia, gay sex, oral sex, anal sex, bestiality etc. etc.

Liberties are defined by the society we live in. They are created by our governments. There is no such thing as an essential liberty and if there was then one person's idea of 'essential liberty' would not be the same as another person's idea of 'essential liberty'. We live in societies and one person's perceived liberties will impact negatively on other people's perceived liberties. There are no sacrosanct liberties for the individual because individuals do not live in isolation, they form part of communities.

Just because you currently have the liberty of owning a firearm does not make that a sacrosanct 'essential liberty'. If it suits your society as a whole then you should keep that liberty, if it doesn't suit your society as a whole then you should lose that liberty.

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 10:39 am: Edit


"...had I been born in a different country, I would have been raised with a totally different religion, and may have had no knowledge of other religions."

You assume that people only have knowledge of the religion they are born into. You have a brain, you have a mind (as do people from other countries), there is a vast wealth of information around us all about different religions (among other things). You only have no knowledge of any subject (including religions) if you choose to have no knowledge. If you reject something without knowledge you are acting from a position of ignorance.

You seem to assume that people are automatically slaves to the religion they were brought up in. You seem to think that the only 'way out' of this is to reject all religions while voluntarily remaining in ignorance of the religions you are rejecting. How can you reject something without knowing anything substantial about what you are rejecting?


By Baz on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 07:41 am: Edit

I say all this comes down to choice. If we are going to talk about historical contexts and men in powdered wigs, we have to see it through their eyes, hear it with their ears.
They came from different backgrounds, and they knew about tyrany. Some had seen it first hand, some were even responsible for it through slavery. They knew that if they began work then, and worked until today, they couldn't create a "perfect" government. Utopia, by definition, is unatainable. They instead attempted to create an approach where the individual created his own rights, and so long as he didn't hurt others he should be left alone. Gun ownership was a totally different thing at that time than it is today. It was a right to hunt your own food, protect your livestock from predators, protect your home from thieves, protect your wife from rape, and protect your freedom from an oppressive government. It was a symbol of self-sufficiency.
What does this mean today? Arguably the same thing. The right to be left alone.

They who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety-Benjamin Franklin

By Timk on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 05:50 am: Edit

one of the factors responsible for me not following any form of organised religion is that had I been born in a different country, I would have been raised with a totally different religion, and may have had no knowledge of other religions.

By Etienne on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 04:38 am: Edit


I believe that all men are CREATED equal, at least in the eyes of God. I however, am not God, and I am not so foolish to believe that most men stay that way very long. It's up to the individual to make of their life what they will. I believe that Crosby's point was that at least here we have that opportunity. The folks that founded my country weren't God either, but they had a vision of a way to give their people that chance, imperfect as it may be. I have unending respect for them, simply for their attempt.


I think I can help you out. Give me a chance to get my email address posted to my profile, then drop me a line. I should have put it up it long ago.

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 02:04 am: Edit


"all men are created equal"

Oh come on you don't believe this to be the truth do you? Yes it would be nice if that was the case but it is simply not so. If they had said that "all men ought to be equal" then I'd agree with it too, but that still wouldn't make it the Truth.

Anyway just because a bunch of guys (who were more privileged than most in their day anyway) said this hundreds of years ago doesn't make it an indisputable and unchallengable Truth. Did they have a direct line to God (who's existence is also not an undeniable fact)?. It was only their opinion that's all, they weren't infallible beings. They may have been right or wrong, both for their own time and for today.

We should make up our own minds on issues and not just sheepishly say "let's see what those men in wigs thought on the matter hundreds of years ago and I'll just go along with him thus saving myself the effort of thinking."


By Pablo on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 12:56 am: Edit

I hate the idea of anyone chipping away at ANY of my rights. So someone goes on the occasional shooting rampage. So someone shoots his wife and kills himself. It was the gun that did it right?
Fuck that. There are some people who are going to do fucked up things no matter what. There is a need for gun laws that make sense and work, not something drafted by a shoot from the hip (bad pun! bad pun!) politician because of pressure form the gated community-removed from reality soccer moms with nothing to do during the day (but the pool boy).

Freedom isn't free, and life is fleeting. Best to live free and enjoy your time.

(pablo ends rant here)

By Crosby on Friday, February 22, 2002 - 12:51 am: Edit


You are correct, I misquoted. I'm not engaging in a discussion about God. You have a problem with "all men are created equal" My point is they are. You are born and you do with it the best you can. It's not flag waving, either you persevere and succeed or you don't. It is up to the individual.
Those "dead guys" laid the foundations for the free society we have. You can't just tear down the parts you don't like and expect the rest to continue to function. I am an ape-like creature who wants stuff, Most of all, I want to live in a free society.


By Destiny on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 11:54 pm: Edit

You're right, Anatomist. Those founding fathers were a bunch of tobaccy growin' rubes!


By Anatomist on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 11:41 pm: Edit

First of all, that 'preamble' is the Declaration of Independence (1776), not the first 10 amendments to the constitution (around 1790).

As far as missing the point... what does waving the flag and talking about your father have to do with this discussion? "Opportunities still exist for everyone that is willing to bust their hump." Huh?

The point I am trying to make is along the lines of the Socratic dialogue on the nature of piety: is something good because the gods like it, or do the gods like it because it's good? Are the freedoms that we desire and value good because a bunch of dead guys said so, or are they just plain good? More to the point, are they really inherently good, descended from heaven stamped with the Good Universekeeping seal of approval, or do we just like them?

I submit that it's the latter. For the most part, I like the freedoms outlined in the constitution and bill of rights. Not because a bunch of dead guys said so, or Zeus carved them into a slab of granite, but just because I want to be able to do what I want, to shoot people who try to hurt me and take my stuff, etc... All this stuff about Gods and taking a microscope to the words of dead guys who used to wear powdered wigs is pretty much window dressing to try and obfuscate the fact that everyone is just going for what they want. In my ontology, valuation just is, it's what living creatures do. There is no escaping the basic reality of valuing, of choosing, of deciding. Choosing some authority like a church or a bible or a constitution or founding fathers to hand over the reigns to might reduce the complexity of your choice-making scheme or lend a veneer of legitimacy to your choices, but it's all the same thing. I say we take down the window dressing, eliminate the middle man/deity, and just fess up: we're all just a bunch of neotonous ape-like creatures that want stuff.


By Elbongo on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 11:20 pm: Edit

I had a very good friend who immigrated here after the fall of Saigon, and landed on US shores with less than $10.

By 1991 he was worth near a million (if not over) from running his own enterprise selling firearms, based out of Tulsa, OK.

An American dream achiever, even though he was cursed for being a minority!

By Crosby on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Very nice intellectual diatribe. Created equal may not mean shit to you but I was able to raise my self above the station I was born to, so did my father as an immigrant. The American dream may not be what it once was, but I don't think it's dead. Opportunities still exist for everyone that is willing to bust their hump. That is all created equal means.
Your focus on the pre-amble misses the point. The bill of rights focuses on individual rights, every last one of the amendments is about individual rights.
Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre(sorry about the over used example) and the right to bear arms does not give you the right to shoot up your work place. The words "shall not be infringed" make the right to firearms non-negotiable. As Don pointed out, the right to bear arms guarantees a well prepared militia and that scares a lot of people.

By Anatomist on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 10:02 pm: Edit

OK. Let's take a look at that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What is being said here may not be vague, but it's a complete load of horseshit. It's self-evident that all men are created equal? In what sense? I would say that it's far more evident that no two men are equal in any sense (except identical twins): height, weight, strength, endurance, intelligence, wisdom, resistance to disease, etc, etc... Everyone varies in terms of basic identity conditions to start with. Two people that were literally equal would in fact merely be the same person described redundantly, because they would have to be equal in terms of occupying the same position in space-time (did the founders know anything about Relativity?). In terms of quantified estimations and rankings, some people are roughly equivalent in terms of one or a few attributes, but this falls far short of the outrageous claim made here.

Moving on... 'they are endowed by their Creator with Inalienable Rights'... say what? If this is also "self-evident", how come no one can agree on who, what, or where this Creator is, or whether there even is one? If these "inalienable rights" are so self-evident, can you show me one? If I put a man in a box and have all the researchers and scientists in the world examine, scrutinize, and dissect him for the entirety of his natural life, will they ever find a "right"? No, because rights don't exist as inseperable properties of human organisms.

A 'right' is a way of describing a made up rule for how a person will be acted or not acted upon by an organized group of people (government), or will be protected from being acted or not acted upon by that group. If the government loses authority or changes it's rules, the right changes or ceases to exist. There is nothing inalienable, or even tangible about rights, and there's certainly no reason to think they inhere in human beings outside of very circumscribed social contexts. The issue of whether or not they were put there by a Creator, is therefore moot.

What emerges from this sentence is an absolutely nonsensical picture of reality that is basically an insult to contemporary intelligence. The assertion of 'self-evidence' invoked is not a good epistemological standard, and doesn't even vaguely apply to the properties asserted here. The theology implied by this sentence is probably disputed by 90% of the people on this discussion board, for starters. They were smart men, very learned in the lore of their time, and they invented a very well-designed government, but by today's standards they are ignorant... literally ignorant of 200 years of human history and thought, because they are long dead.


By Elbongo on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 09:16 pm: Edit


I ran a wholesale/retail weapons business in the 80's and 90's, and vagely remember RSR wholesale selling the FM Highpowers, as well as I believe SOG sold them also.

Anyway as best I can recall I ordered a couple of the FMs, the quality was subpar (the finish was a thin black coating of crapola-flon and they were jam-o-matics), and I never messed with them again unless I received them on a trade.

Are you still active in todays market where you could give me a price quote on some HK rifles and other misc goods? I quit the business 8 years ago and have lost touch with the market.

By Mr_Rabid on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 08:47 pm: Edit

Simple- because if you pick away at a freedom crumb by crumb, you can get the whole thing eventually.

But for them to say 'guns is illegal, so turn em in y'all' all of a sudden, well, someone might notice.

It's a great system for shortening the leash, nice and gradually.

It works for privacy too.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Oh, I'm fully aware that the founding fathers weren't omniscient, or omnibenevolent (that whole owning people thing...) But they did provide a mechanism by which the constitution could be changed if circumstances called for it. We have done this before (the 14th amendment greatly broadening the Federal government's power, and the 16th giving them the money to use that power) and I fail to understand why, if the American people really beleive the federal governemnt should have the power to restrict gun ownership, that we shouldn't ammend the constitution to give it that power, instead of just pretending it already does.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 08:26 pm: Edit


Unreasonable search and seizure for one. The RICO laws for another.

Amen. I know too many people who are single-issue voters, and will support anybody who opposes gun-control, regardless of what positins they hold on other issues. I prefer to see which of my freedoms, and of my fellow citizens, are in the most real danger and make my choices from there. The ever-broadening power of police, especially in regards to the drug war, seems to be doing a lot more damage toindividual liberty than gun control.

By Etienne on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Dr. Ordinaire;

Had a chance to check on that FM high-power that I mentioned earlier. I had hoped to take a look at marks, proofs, etc. Sorry to say the darn thing finally sold. Our records indicate Argentina as the place of origin, and FM (not FN) as manufacturer. Hope you'll take my word for it. If FM made knockoffs of MP-40's, FAL's and 1911's, there's certainly nothing strange about the idea of them producing knockoffs of Browning Hi-Powers.

By Crosby on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 08:01 pm: Edit

I don't see what's vague about terms like " shall not be infringed" .Truths that are "self evident" become less so when trying to erode individual liberties

By Pan on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 06:40 pm: Edit

As a note on Constitutional history, a subject I am much in love with:

Be extremely careful when asserting what the gentlemen who wrote it meant. The truth of the matter is that, as with any compromise document, some people agreed with some parts, not with others. Some parts were written with a great deal of intentional vagary. The fact that the debate as to "what the Constitution meant" began immediately after it was presented for ratification and took place after it's ratification by many of the very same people who wrote it is testament to the fact that while individual men may have had select intentions in proposing and consenting to certain passages, it is fair to say that as a group there was tremendous ambiguity as to what the document REALLY said.

The long and skinny of it? The Constitution is a document that from its very inception has been the subject interpretation, and to pretend that there is a "what the Founding Fathers meant" is a distortion of the truth and glosses over the very vibrant discussions that surrounded their compromise.

That being said, I did present only one interpretation, and so don't think I'm saying the others are wholly illegitimate or something. I guess you could say I was just being a devil's advocate.

*hands off the soapbox*

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Can we take it that Anatomist is not a strict (Constitutional) constructionist?

By Crosby on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 06:13 pm: Edit

They may be dead but what they believed in lives on. Our whole way of life is based on what these " long dead, out of the loop" people stood for. Their ideas are not archaic. The same truths stand now as they did 200+ years ago. To pick and chose which rights apply today invalidates the whole system. The problem is that whenever there is a problem, we are much to willing to give up our personal freedoms. And, as one of these long dead, insignificant people pointed out, if this is our course of action, we don't deserve our freedoms.

By Pikkle on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Hell, back in the day, you could walk into your local hardware store and pick up a Tommy Gun...

By Anatomist on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 05:48 pm: Edit

One thing to keep in mind about the 'founding fathers' is that they are all long dead. While the Constitution and the government they set up is well designed, they were not gods or omniscient seers. I think it's funny when arguments about whether or not some law ought to be passed devolve into trying to second guess what people who have been dead for 150 years would have to say about contemporary issues. If you want to ban guns, internet porn, speaking Spanish, or whatever, ban it. If you don't, don't. George Washington is out of the loop. If you could wake him up, or bring him here in a time machine, he'd probably just say "This place is wretched. Put me back."


By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 05:44 pm: Edit

Blackjack hit the nail on the head. Gun laws as a rule are pointless exercises. For example, the National Firearms Act of 1934, which mandated federal registration of machine guns, silencers, short barreled shotguns etc. In the 68 years since, there has been exactly ONE instance of a REGISTERED machine gun being used in a 'crime' and that was a domestic homicide. A gun dealer killed his wife.

What has the NFA done about all the crimes committed with ILLEGAL machine guns? Nothing. The vast majority of those are stolen from the US military. Hell, ATF doesn't even bother prosecuting your basic bad guys when they get caught by the local cops with sawed off shotguns. Why not?

If you go back and examine the actual circumstances that led to the passage of the NFA '34, you will be interested to note that the inclusion of machine guns was not due to their widespread use by criminals but rather an ugly incident in Athens Georgia in which strike breakers used the local sherrif's two Thompson guns against a labor union. Yet the NFA did nothing to deter local police agencies from acquiring more machine guns (and no federal law does so even to this day.)

Laws like this are passed so that politicians can pretend to their constituents that they are doing SOMETHING about 'crime' even though they know they are not. It's a cynical game, and it is eroding the Bill or Rights.

THERE ARE WORSE THINGS OUT THERE than gun control. Unreasonable search and seizure for one. The RICO laws for another.

By Crosby on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 04:50 pm: Edit


I think the founding fathers would have wanted you to have the right to have one.


By Pikkle on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Well... if anyone ever wonders why we've never been invaded, it's because the general populace is armed. The government ban on assualt weapons back in '89 outlawed such things as bayonet lugs, pistol grips and flash suppressors on imported weapons and restricted them on those made here. I cannot remember the last time a party store or private home was robbed using the ole bayonet charge. A flash suppressor won't hide a flash signature closer than a hundred yards. It's just feel good legislation meant to quiet all those moral majority types - soccer moms and born again christians, the same ones who get to tell you what you can do with your body, watch on tv or drink at home...

By Mvario on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Well, I don't feel prepared to fight unless I'm allowed to have my own tactical nuke.

By Crosby on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 04:29 pm: Edit

I always thought the point of the second amendment was to enable the populace to rise up against tyranny.The gist being that if our government became corrupt we could rise up against it. Don't bother with arguments concerning the realities involved.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 04:23 pm: Edit

My main problem with most gun laws isn't so much that they are tyrranical as that they are pointless. They do almost nothing about the guns actually used in crimes (most of which are handguns, obtained illegally) and focus on imaginary threats ("cop killer" bullets) or on weapons hardly ever used in crimes, and which are no more deadly than legal weapons, but LOOK scary. Moreover, ever-increasing restrictions on guns have had no effect, one way or the other, on the use of guns in crime, which has remained pretty steady for the past 80 years.

On the other hand, I'm not particularly scared of gun control, either. Even an outright ban on private ownership (which would never happen) would be no more effective at disarming the populous than drug prohibition has been at getting rid of drugs. If it became necissary to overthrow the government or repel invaders (which was the purpose of the second ammendment) there would be guns availible, and nobody would care if they weren't legally obtained.

As stupid as they tend to be, gun control laws are mostly a threat to recreational gun use, and perhaps their use in home defense. They aren't going to strip us of or ability to become a militia if we had to.

By Etienne on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 04:00 pm: Edit

At the time the Constitution was drafted the term militia was intended to include all males of arms bearing age, and a flintlock musket was state of the art military hardware. Even now, federal law recognizes the "unorganized militia" as being the entire male population of adult age.

If I remember correctly, until the war of 1812, the entire federal army consisted of two regiments of infantry and one of dragoons, with all the artillery in private hands. The idea was to make sure that the citizen militia would be stronger than the national military.

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 02:21 pm: Edit

The Second Amendment speaks to the need for the rights of the individual citizenry to keep and bear arms, because self same citizenry needs to be competent ('well regulated' means competent and equipped, not buried in red tape) when called upon to act in the common defense.

We are a citizen army. At the time of the Revolutionary War, few weapons were provided to recruits -- recruits brought their own and brought the skill to use them. A citizen army defeated the armies of George III.

If Alvin York hadn't spent his time at turkey shoots, he wouldn't have been the keen marksman he proved to be, and we'd have one less winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

By Admin on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 02:21 pm: Edit

an aside, the suspension is only imposed for 1 week. whether Terminus chooses to come back and be a productive member of society or not is up to him.

By Louched_Liver on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Admin. is probably right Crosby. Wolfgang is just saying that Terminus will more than likely be back in a different guise.

By Admin on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Crosby, I think Wolfgang was referring to Terminus ... wasn't he?

By Destiny on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Pan, Pan, Pan.... I know it sounds trite, but that's how it all starts - and let's not kid ourselves, it *has* started. Volumes have been written and spoken on the second Ammendment so I won't waste bandwidth.

Damn, lunch over, back to class.

By Crosby on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 01:10 pm: Edit


I don't know how you figure this. I have tried to be nothing but respectful in the short time I've been posting. I merely made a point about selectiveness. I love this subject and have learned much from the members of this board, yourself included. Maybe it's a reaction to living in a state that leads the way in mindless political correctness.


By Wolfgang on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Down the bridge he goes...and he will probably emerge soon with a brand new slimy green troll suit...

By Crosby on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:39 pm: Edit


Fortunately, the current powers that be have the view that the second amendment is an individual right, not a right of the "militia". All the other amendments to the constitution deal with individual rights, why would the second be any different.
I'm pleased that Terminus is no longer among us. My point was either let the moron spew or get rid of him.


By Admin on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:34 pm: Edit


... Don, what where you saying?

By Admin on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:29 pm: Edit

You are all entitled to your opinions. But it has long been my policy to delete posts that are deeply offensive to another member.

This isn't a public forum. There are rules. That is not fascist.

** humming an old clash song **

By Pan on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:29 pm: Edit

You know, I don't mean to be unkind, but I get mighty tired of people trotting out the Second Ammendment pony.

I preface this by saying I like guns. A lot. Maybe more than is healthy for someone my age. But the Second Ammendment is not a blanket right to carry firearms. It is a guarantee of the right to carry ARMS for service in a militia.

I don't deny that to completely disarm a populace opens the way to dangerous possibilities, but taking away my Glock does not a tyrant make.

No one need feel they must respond, I'm basically just venting frustration at people being glib.

*returns quietly to his corner*

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:26 pm: Edit

Oh, I wouldn't use the f word with Admin, Crosby, you fuckin' new guy, you. In case someone didn't know what FNG stangs for. Welcome to the looney bin, btw.

And she did terminate his account. Better late than never.

By Crosby on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:24 pm: Edit

All I mean is that I don't have much to add. I benefit from other's knowledge on an obscure subject.

By Timk on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:21 pm: Edit

"I'm not a valuable contributor to this forum"
I think its sad someone feels this way

By Crosby on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Although Terminus is an idiot, censorship is fascist. I really don't care if you want to brand me as an FNG, newbie is a stupid term. California has already de-facto repealed the second amendment and now the first seems to be just as expendable. I'm not a valuable contributor to this forum but it seems that those that are don't have the balls to stand up for what they truly believe in. If he is a troll ignore him or terminate his account. If you are going to allow him to post then don't interfere. By the way FNG is a respected theatre term.


By Timk on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:00 pm: Edit

ur on the ball today

By Admin on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 11:58 am: Edit

The posts were deleted because they were offensive and inflammatory.

That's all you need to know.

If you are worried about missing out, you can sign up for email notification in your profile.

By Timk on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 11:57 am: Edit

Does anyone else find deleted posts disconcerting, let him ramble, and we can ignore it, but deleting the posts worries me

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 11:35 am: Edit

Hey, guys and gals, I know it's tacky to advertise in the Forum, but this is a special occasion.

I'm leaving the US and I'm selling my gun collection.

That is:

Daewoo KiA1 Assault rifle, .223 caliber: fired 7 rounds.
Desert Eagle .44 Magnum: maybe 200 rounds (This is the sweetest gun I've had. That you could fire a 44 Mag, rapid fire, put ALL the rounds in a target, no problem...)
Parabellum 9mm Navy version (long barrel), S/S
Glock 19: OK, this was my workhorse. Maybe 500 rounds.

So, with apologies to the non-gun-loving Forumites, if anybody's interested, please contact me at drordinaire@aol.com. All guns are legal and, regarding the Daewoo, registered with the State of California.

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 11:25 am: Edit

For many millions read: scores of millions maybe hundreds of millions. A classic boondoggle.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 11:15 am: Edit


By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 10:52 am: Edit

Sounds like the HK G-11. This was a project that the US pumped many millions into, but is basically a waste of time and all that money.

HK did the rifle, Dynamit Nobel did the caseless ammo. Molded propellant with the projectile up front and a primer at rear. So no extractor or ejector. On the other hand no case to obturate the hot gases, and the G-11 always had a breech sealing problem as a result.

The main accomplishment of this boondoggle was to increase the cookoff temperature of the caseless ammo to an almost practicable level. Cookoff means, the chamber is hot enough to cause the propellant to burn. D-N managed this by admixing the propellant with a high temperature resistant high explosive, namely Octogen or HMX, which did the trick but also results in higher in-bore temperatures and thus, faster erosion.

The point of this exercise was to achieve very high rate of fire controlled bursts, in an attempt to duplicate a mathematical model for Probability of Hit and Kill that was predicted to be optimum with such fast short burts about 50 years ago. (at US Army Operational Research Office, Johns Hopkins Project SALVO).

When the US stopped pissing money their way, the German Army dropped the G-11 development like a hot rock. It' a financial black hole.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 10:34 am: Edit

Don, do you know what happened to that European project of some years ago, an automatic rifle where the there was a twisting "loader" and the ammo did not have cartridges, to save weight, or something like that?

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 09:53 am: Edit

The Stoner 63 had some minor tweaking donw to it and evolved into the 63A and 63A1, but there were no real problems with it in Nam.

In 1994 I put a dozen of those original Stoners, modified to take the current NATO link rather than the Stoner link, and barreled with fast twist (but original 1960s) barrels to handle the current 5.56mm NATO -- through Thai Army troops trials and technical trials, FIVE TIMES. Why five times? We didn't have enough samples to put 60 guns (12 x 5) in the field so we took the same guns to the five different infantry bases in series. So our Stoners took 5 times more abuse than anyone else. We went up against all the 'Big Boys' -- FN, HK, Royal Ordnance, Santa Barbara (Spain), Chartered Industries (Singapore). And we stood up well against them.

Gene Stoner of course also designed the M16, in the 1950s, we are still using this weapon today. It had its problems in Nam, mostly because Colt told the troops they didn't need to clean it! Plus the Pentagon buggered up the ammunition by changing from IMR to ball propellant.

But the Stoner System is far superior.

By Pan on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 08:44 am: Edit

Wait . . . Terminus doesn't like Don?

Oh, that explains so much!

Not Very Bright,

By Anatomist on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 07:15 am: Edit

Get a life, Terminus. You're starting to look like the biggest loser ever to drift through the Forum. Alright, you hate Don. We get it. Time to move on and find a new reason to exist.


By Terminus on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 06:07 am: Edit

*** DELETED ***

By Etienne on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 04:10 am: Edit


Thanks for the clarification. I'll see if I can't find a reference on the law. California has a web site with all the new regs on it. One of the guys at the store recently returned to Mich. after eighteen years in the wholesale end of the business in CA. He wouldn't stay there with the new laws. I'm sure he's very familiar with the situation.

By Pablo on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 03:07 am: Edit

I understand the Stoner that was used by the SEALS in Viet Nam had some problems that were worked out later on. All The SEALS who used them raved about them though, and I cant remember what the problem was. (seems like almost every weapon system used has problems that arn't discovered until its battle tested)

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 02:51 am: Edit

If you want a .308 semi auto the state of the art is the Stoner SR-25, which is a hybrid of AR-10 and AR-15. Damned thing will do a quarter MOA and that is better than most any bolt gun with a top end barrel, and glassed stock. A quarter MOA at 100 m is a slightly ragged single hole. But 5 shots went in that hole.

Not an inexpensive rifle, though.

Skip the Europeans for a sniper rifle. Except for the Swiss, the Europeans think a 3 MOA rifle is for marksmen. Examples of bad, overpriced, overweight Europeans sniper rifles:

Walther WA2000

By Pablo on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 01:03 am: Edit

Oh yeah, and the prices listed on their web site: crap.
You can get the same rifle for 300-500 dollars cheaper if you shop around.

By Pablo on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:57 am: Edit

Their web site is www.springfield-armory.com/

By Pablo on Thursday, February 21, 2002 - 12:51 am: Edit

I would suggest the M1A by Springfield Arms. And yeah, you can only get the 10 round mag for it in California.
Fucking pisses me off as I have over 25 30round mags for the AR-15 that I cant get an AR-15 for!
I "aquired" them when I was in the army.
(Damn! Can't get them to fit my M1A!)

Note: for all the feds out there, I've had them since 1999!

By Crosby on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 11:08 pm: Edit

The California law bans the possession or importation of all mags over 10 rounds that you can't prove you owned before 1-1-2000. Magazines of over 10 rounds must be pre-ban, before 1994 and I believe that is also the federal law.

By Perruche_Verte on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 11:02 pm: Edit

OK, gun people, total newbie question:

What's likely to be a "best buy" in a used
.223 semi-auto?

And of what should the buyer beware, aside from
really obvious maintenance issues?

By Etienne on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 08:57 pm: Edit

I understand about the fountain... I'm in the same spot.

By Etienne on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 08:54 pm: Edit


My understanding of the California law is that any mag over ten rounds is illegal..period. I do live a long ways away, and I may be mistaken about this, but the store I work for sells on the internet and we are being VERY careful about what is in the pistols that we ship to the west coast. This is not a Federal law, that only limits the capacity of new manufacture. I believe the CA. law eliminates hi-caps entirely.

With a more sporty version of a .308 you can take your pick... Remington, Browning, Ruger, any of the major makers would be a quality rifle. You could set any of them up for about what you want to spend.

By Destiny on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Etienne, I don't understand - what exactly do you advise against with the clips?

I'm open to blued with wood stock for the 308, more suggetions? (Of course, I may have to forget the 308 for a while if Justin gets any of those fountains in staineless.)

By Etienne on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 08:15 pm: Edit

No, I'm sure I've got the letters right. FM, not FN, just can't remember right now where and when.

European Hi-Power knock off, from where? I'll see if I still have it in stock, report back. I've seen the Inglis, nice gun. Canadians can do nice work. (I hear some of them even make good absinthe)

I believe FN-USA took Colt's M-16 contracts. Who cares? Colt is a bunch of arrogant bastards to do business with.

I've been fairly well impressed with the stuff I've seen come out of Argentina, much more so than with the Spanish.

Bersa IS Saturday night... still sell them though.

By Sicboy13 on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 07:58 pm: Edit

I may not be the first, hopefully, not the last...But, Don, You know alot `o shit. Respectfully, Sicboy

By Etienne on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Maybe Hungarian? Can't remember, gotta check.

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 07:53 pm: Edit

You may be confusing FM (Argentina's military arsenal) with FN (major arms company, based in Belgium.)

FN is Fabrique National. They were the licensee of John Browning for a lot of his designs (including the P-35 Hi-Power). Forget Browning Arms Co., in Utah -- they are just the importers.

The P-35 was also made in lots of other places including Canada (by John Inglis).

FN is now a subsidiary of GIAT (France) while itself owns a big chunk of Beretta (Italy). FN has a factory in USA in S.Carolina which competes against Colt for US military contracts for the M16A2 and M4.

FM (Argentina) makes good stuff. The copies of the 1911 series .45s they built were outstanding. These were marked Modello 1927 as I recall. Later they built a simplified version that was not so outstanding.

Bersa: is is Saturday night?

By Etienne on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 07:10 pm: Edit

I'll double check, maybe Spanish, no way French. I'll get back to ya.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Et, I think we are talking about different FMs. The initials are the same in Spanish and French.

By Etienne on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 06:25 pm: Edit

I often see FM copies of the Browning Hi-Power. They look like a decent deal for the money. (Not expensive) I have no idea what the parts situation is. I doubt things interchange with the Browning.

By Dr_Ordinaire on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Baz, back to your original question. I'm not a weapons expert, but I'm from Argentina.

The two big manufacturers there were Bersa (small caliber handguns) and then it was FM (Fabricaciones Militares) owned by the government.

FM made lots of guns, like the PAM 9mm(looked like the German Schmeisser (sp?)) to the FAL semi-auto rifle (the NATO one) to some excellent copies of the '45 Colt 1911 pistol. They are still selling them in the US as surplus.

Firestorm? Never heard of it.

By Raschied on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 03:56 pm: Edit


What I found in my brief experience with the organized Libertarian party is most people wimp out when they get to the polls, and vote major party, feeling they'd rather have a conservative republican than "risk" their vote. The major parties push this fact to death - last example was the Nader vote that "gave the election away" to Bush. The Dem's beat that one into the ground.

Vote your effing conscience. Don't give me that "lesser of two evils" bullshit.

By Drbeer on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 03:31 pm: Edit

I want an H&K MP7!!

By Etienne on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Destiny, if you have hi-caps for your Beretta and Sig, I wouldn't adveritse it.

Remington makes their light tactical in .308, if you can find one. We see them in .223 fairly often, .308 is a lot tougher. If you don't go crazy with the scope, you can put a package together for about a thousand. If money weren't an object, maybe a Sig Blaser, or one of the new Steyrs, can't remember the model right now.

If you want something with a wood stock and nice shiny blue, instead of the matte tactical look, the choices open up considerably.

By Baz on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 02:20 pm: Edit

So many people claim that they vote libertarian, (myself included) but we can't seem to get anybody elected. One congressman?


By Pikkle on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Ah... the good ole PRK... could buy a lot of nice paras for cheap when they passed that idiot legislation... when's the big one supposed to hit again? I wanna make sure I've got my lawn chair set-up and a nice big cooler of beer... and of course my FAL across my lap.

By Raschied on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 01:33 pm: Edit

I remember the run on "vintage" clips when that one went into effect. For a while, you could pick up the big clips at gun shows for a c-note or 2.

They also made shotguns limit magazine size to (I think) 2 rounds. They even published instruction on how to make the modification with a broomstick. I sent my representative a note showing an alternate location for the broomstick...

By Raschied on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 01:31 pm: Edit

Ahh, California, the land where they put a moratorium on mountain lion hunting, and villianize the hunters, until overpopulation forces the mountain lion population to look for alternate food sources, and a little girl is killed by one. Then, the same legislature can't pass out hunting permits quick enough.

California, the land that bans guns because they "look military-like." What the hell? If I paint my AR-15 with pictures of daisies, can I keep it? Huh?

California, the land that charges real estate property tax FOR A BOAT!

I have lived there for over 30 years now, and I spent 3 years working in a lobbyist office near the Capitol building when I was a teenager. I've voted Libertarian since then. I know it's not a unique problem to Cali, but I'm so damn sick of the quick-fix, get-me-re-elected tactics that get passed in my state, especially the gun laws.

Sorry for the rant...it's a sore point.

By Destiny on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 01:21 pm: Edit

Yup, wonderful California. My 228 and beretta have 13 and 15 round clips, both of which are now limited to 10 rounds! Don't remember if that was a federal or state thing - just plain stupid. As you can tell, our crime problem was solved with that one.

I'm looking for a bolt 308 and scope, Not into used stuff (unless you're talking Pamela Anderson or Himmler's Luger.)

Thanks for any suggestons.

By Etienne on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 04:56 am: Edit

Sorry Destiny, I just noticed that you're from the great state of California!

Too bad for you.

I guess you better think about a bolt action.
Or maybe a handful of rocks and a baseball bat. ;-)

By Etienne on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 04:45 am: Edit

For a thousand bucks you have options. Are you looking for a semi-auto or a bolt? Scope and bipod? Or more of a military configuration?

By Petermarc on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 02:57 am: Edit

either that or the tic-tacs next to the cash register...

By Pablo on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 02:56 am: Edit

Ahh. Ok. That makes sense. It was an inpulse buy, and at less then 180 dollars one I am very happy with!

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 02:30 am: Edit

Pablo -- the Makarov is pretty much a copy of the Walther PP. Those Alsatians know how to design a jam free gun. The Russians know how to steal from the best.

FYI the Walther PP and PPK, since end of WWII, have been made at Manurhin in France. The finished pistols are then shipped to Walther and marked MADE IN GERMANY. Why is this? It has to do with the fact that the Walther plant was in the French occupation zone. The French stole the machinery and tooling.

Reason for rebarreling of the PM is because the original chambering is harder to find. It's not just a rechambering because the Makarov cartridge is about 0.25mm larger than 9mm as well as having a longer/larger case. So, you are better off with .380 ACP.

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 02:22 am: Edit

Metalstorm has nothing to do with small arms. It is a barrel stuffed serially with propellant and projectiles, one after the other.

The propellant is then ignited electronically, front to back, and you get a stream of projectiles out the barrel in a hurry.

The number of projectiles is limited by barrel length obviously. Forget a million rounds a minute, that's a theoretical rate.

This has potential for CIWS applications presently using 20mm Gatlings and APDS projectiles for a kinetic kill against sea0slimming missiles attacking naval vessels.

However at present the Metalstorm is a low velocity therefore low energy device, little more than a toy, a technology demonstrator.

Trust me, the US labs will figure out a way to make this a perpetual R&D project.

By Themagicman on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 - 01:06 am: Edit

Hay screwed up, I thought it was firestorm but I was wrong, BUT for all you gun people have you heard of this project itís called the METALSTORM. See my confusion firestorm metal storm go to google and do a search. I canít find the site that I found a good time ago but here are some that I found




By Pablo on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 11:59 pm: Edit

I just (well, about a year ago) purchased a Makarov rechambered to .380. It works great. I've used it with hollow points as well as ball ammo and havnt had a problem with stove piping that alot of compact .380's seem to have. It was cheap as hell too!

Those ruskies knew how to make a jam free weapon!

(I understand that there were alot of rechambered Makarov's made for the U.S. market)

By Destiny on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 10:32 pm: Edit

"Reasonable" is pretty subjective, huh? It's just for fun so I'm thinking under $1,000. I'm sure it's very low for something nice but any suggestions for basically well made and accurate?

By Etienne on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 08:20 pm: Edit

Just how reasonable are we talking here?

By Destiny on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Whoohooo guns, Sig 228 and Beretta 92FS here. Any suggestions on a reasonably priced 308?

By Etienne on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 07:44 pm: Edit

The Firestar was a Star model, very similar to what Astra was producing, an inexpensive Spanish import. Not a high quality firearm.

By Baz on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 11:12 am: Edit

Main weapon is still a glock .40

By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 08:36 am: Edit

'Firestorm' appears to be affiliated with Bersa and Llama.


Skip them and buy a real gun.

By Baz on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 06:24 am: Edit

I bought the firestorm 380 just as an experiment, had heard a few good things about it. Had a problem stovepiping until I broke it down totally and just cleaned the snot out of it. It seems to like almost no oil, but has worked flawlessly since. Just wondered if it had any kind of reputation I should know about. We recently had a prosecutor murdered by the defendant in a trial and a lot of attorneys seem to be carrying concealed weapons.
Assholes with big mouths and little guns.

By Pablo on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 02:36 am: Edit

Hey Don, how are people handling the princess/poisioning situation over there? Is the royalty in Thailand seen in the same light as the royalty in say England?

By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 01:59 am: Edit

Firestar was if I remember, an Astra model, medium size, single action, single column magazine auto imported by Interarms.

The former art director of Interarms (Bob Magee) used to make up joke advertising artwork to pass around in house. One such showed a security guard throwing down on a fleeing perp with an Astra or similar, large frame .44 Magnum revolver.

The caption was "HALT! Or I'll kill us both!"

By Pan on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 09:25 pm: Edit

I remember a Fire- something from years ago . . .

I remember the model name was "Firestar" it was a fairly compact pistol in .40

I think they were marketing it as a home-defense/concealable sorta deal.

It was years ago during my Guns&Ammo kick, so I might mis-remember

By Themagicman on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Hay don go to google and do a search for firestorm i think you might find it if not Ill try and post the web latter let know what you find out

Magic Man

By Pikkle on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 07:38 pm: Edit

I've a friend with a Smith and Wesson model 76... an older police 9mm auto once meant to replace the aging Tommy... I fired it once at a range... in single shot, you felt almost no recoil at all... but in auto, you couldn't keep the sucker down... so it's not the size of your magazine but how you use it!

By Elbongo on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Looks like they are affiliated with Llama of Argentina. Llamas are not known for their quality (which is an understatement)


By Don_Walsh on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 07:35 pm: Edit


What caliber is this wundergewehr?


Another variant on the Austrian Voere thingy that is best known at "American 180"? Looked like a Thompson but had a 177 rd pan magazine on top.

Fired at 1800 rpm, which of course meant that the magazine was empty in 6 seconds.

Was very finicky about brand of .22LR you fed it, was unreliable if you fed it one it didn't like. Trial and error.

Introduced in the 1960s and targeted the prison guard market with a large clumsy early laser system on board.

A small, rather useless sound supressor (.22LR is supersonic) was an option.

My point is, high rates of fire per se are not particularly important.

Reliability, power, controllability, are more important.

Single barreled self powered small arms firing conventional cased ammunition hit a rate limit at about 2000 rpm, with practical rates of 600-1200 rpm being more typical.

Experimental attempts to get arround this involve caseless or liquid propellant systems.

Other experimental systems involed folded or telescoped or semi-caseless ammunition.

Attempts to up effective rpm by going to multiple projectiles have been around for a half century but rarely get anywhere in the real world.

By Themagicman on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 06:49 pm: Edit

I have Its that gun that shoot like a mill. rounds a min.. or something like its like a zip or siatic gun or something not real sure they have have a wed site and one of or local talk radio show was talking about them and i think they might been on 20/20 not sure the site had some mpegs that u could download and watch pretty cool


By Pikkle on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Me neither...

By Don_Walsh on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Sorry, never heard of them.

By Baz on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Hey don, do you know anything about Firestorm, a small arms manufacturer in argentina?

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation