![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Kurt
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 27 2003
Status: offline
|
 Posted - September 29 2003 : 06:41:56 AM
|
NEED is a tough word to define.
Every fall for 3 1/2 decades (more or less) I get the urge to get a flintlock. Maybe I miss Fess Parker. Maybe I shouldn't read Mr. Cooper so much. Maybe I should be happy observing at Ft. Ticonderoga when it's French and Indian Encampment Day. Do I NEED a Kentucky longrifle?
My grandfather and I would go squirrel hunting. He wore a hearing aid so he would watch me and when I would turn to locate a noise, he would shoot the squirrel I "pointed" for him before I could raise my .22. When he died, my grandmother gave me his Winchester Model 12. Do I NEED a Model 12?
When I was little, my father taught me safe gun handling and responsible behavior. When I had proven myself reliable and trustworthy, he gave me my .22. Do I NEED a .22? |
Yr. obt. svt.
Kurt |
report to moderator  |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 29 2003 : 4:57:54 PM
|
NEED is a tough word, Kurt. You really make some excellent points in all of your posts (Oh no!, Will I be accused of patting you on the back next?). One thing we do not need is to give in any more. Our side has made concessions, with no 'quid-pro-quo', since the 1934 National Firearms Act, followed by the 1968 Gun Control Act and more recently with the 1994 Crime Bill. The other side has nothing to offer us, so why should we continue to conceed?
I liked your last post, concerning a brief look at your experience with firearms. Mine was very similar, my father taught me how to shoot and handle weapons safely starting at age eight. When I was thirteen, I was given my first weapon, a Mossberg bolt-action .22WMR (Remember the old '580' line of Mossberg rimfire rifles?).
At age eighteen, I entered the military, where my government introduced me to the M-16A1 Rifle. The taught me how to use and handle said weapon system safely and effectively. They then later sent me to places where they entrusted me to handle that and other weapons within the boundries of my orders/directives. I liked the M-16 so much, that I purchased the civilian copy (yes, a real M-16, not the semi-auto AR-15, which did take a while thanks to ATF paperwork), while I was still on active duty. I still own that rifle to this day, and I enjoy shooting it as much today as I did the first time in boot camp. Now I do not 'need' this rifle, but I like it and I think I have earned right to own it. Not just because of the inalienable rights guarenteed to me in the Bill of Rights, but I also feel that I have demonstrated that I can use said weapon both safely and legally in the service of my nation and it is the least of which can be done in return for what I had given. Well, now I'm off on a tangent again, forgive me.
In closing, good post Kurt. Both you and Bill are saying the same things I'm thinking. Keep it up...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 29 2003 : 8:19:58 PM
|
Found this painting over at John Buxton's website.
It is titled "American Heritage"
Image Insert:
15.48 KB
"This poignant painting relates that moment when it is time to teach your son the proper use of a fire arm. The boy is proud and excited to finally be old enough and will soon know the deadly serious responsibility bestowed upon him."
Check out the rest of Buxton's excellent historical paintings at http://www.buxtonart.com/index.html
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 30 2003 : 11:38:51 AM
|
Let's talk about compromise, and those we are asked to compromise with........
As Sarge said, you can't compromise when the other side has nothing to give you, and you have everything to lose. They give up nothing, and we give up something every time. That's not compromise. Any more than it was compromise when Chamberlain gave up Austria, gave up Sudetenland, gave up Chekoslovakia and got nothing but empty promises in return. Hitler gave up nothing. The world gave up things which were not theirs to give. In the end, war was the only way to stop the trend and reverse it....at a much larger cost than if no compromise had been done in the first place. Same in this case. Giving up guns piece by piece, type by type over time is NOT ours to give up.
2nd Ammendment doesnt just exist for those of us living now. It exists for future generations to ensure their freedom from oppression by their own government.
Now let's talk about the kinds of people we are expected to compromise WITH.
How many times has a sly, confiscation been attempted by tacking it onto a totally unrelated bill? You think a ballistics database is about tracking a bullet used in a crime? It's about a back door method of registration. A registered database of all gun owners is illegal. Paperwork approved for purchases must be destroyed. It isn't but the FEDS can't maintain one. Local gunshops can and must.
A ballistics database gives Feds the means to establish a database.
It's worse than that. Just in Wisconsin, it was discovered that in an agricultural bill, the antis had sneaked in language at the very last minute in the dark of night just prior to Assembly vote a clause that would outlaw ammunition of all types. It was discovered fortunately, and killed.
An anti-terrorist bill was submitted right after 9-11. It was pretty similar to the Patriot Act. But went further. Just before it was due to come up for a vote, the antis sneaked into the bill language which specifically stated that State Gov could, in the event of a national emergency, or a State declared emergency or natural disaster, CONFISCATE ALL GUNS. Meaning, at the time of greatest chaos and danger to the citizens, the State would have the power to go after all the guns BEFORE they even responded to the real emergency. That was the language. And, might I add, there was NO provision for returning those firearms after the "emergency" was over. And it was up to the State to decide what an "emergency" was. That Bill was killed also.
These people will try any subterfuge, ANY sneaky and unlawful way, ANY means including sleazy back door legislation on insignificant bills in the hopes nobody will notice, to achieve total disarmament.
Why on earth, how on earth, can there be compromise with such people? WHY would anybody want to compromise with such people? If they have to resort to such underhanded, such secretive and drastic means to achieve their ends in the darkness of the political cloakrooms, and are willing to do so.....WHY AND HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM? Are we supposed to believe they have our best interests at heart, and BELIEVE THEM when they tell us they will not abuse powers given to them? Anybody who thinks that would probably think Hitler was a nice guy, and it was just his henchmen who were evil...that Hitler just wanted what was best for his people, but his cronies wanted absolute power.
End of discussion on this topic for me. If one is not yet convinced, they don't want to be convinced and don't want to see the dangers in adulterating the BOR. They are firmly in the anti-Constitutional camp either by decision or through complete acceptance of the socialist propaganda designed to make this a much different form of government than was ever intended.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - September 30 2003 : 1:36:34 PM
|
Right on target, Bill, you continue to hit the 10X while our oposition can only fly 'Maggies Drawers' (An old military/DCM rifle range phrase, meaning the white flag passed over the target, from the scoring pit, to show a complete miss). Unless the other side comes to the table with something besides, 'taking half away instead of all', then we must dig-in, and 'fix bayonets'. Because, as you so correctly stated, what they want us to give up is not ours to give. It was entrusted to us from previous generations(going all the way back to the Founding Fathers), to bequeath to future ones. Bravo, Bill!!!!
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 30 2003 : 4:38:18 PM
|
Well, in ending my part in the "pro" Ammendment reasons, I'd like to throw the burden on the back of the antis. Sarah, and those who think any part of the 2nd Ammendment is outmoded, tell me this:
we've explained how removal of the 2nd would/could/does infringe on the rights of us all. Now why dont YOU tell us how the 2nd remaining IN PLACE infringes on YOUR rights, please? Think about your answer please, because you aren't going to get away with generalizations such as "I don't like guns" or such reasoning.
Your approach is a lot like somebody saying "I don't believe in God, it's utter nonsense, and you have no right to make me attend church".
Correct. But you extend it to "and if I DON'T believe in God, it's an infringement on my rights if anybody ELSE does, or talks about it, or I see a picture of God in a magazine, or anybody teaches their kids about God, or want to send them to religious schools instead of public school, or in any way dispute MY right to impose MY beliefs on YOU.
The existence of the 2nd harms none. Removal of it harms us all.
Your logic is as flawed as saying we don't need the constitutional protections of freedom of religion because nobody is oppressed in this country for religious reasons anymore. Or.......perhaps even more to your logic.....there is religious oppression in the world, so having an ammendment even SPEAKING to religious oppression encourages that very oppression. Let's not mention religion at all and perhaps religious oppression will go away.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 01 2003 : 02:34:37 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
Well, in ending my part in the "pro" Ammendment reasons, I'd like to throw the burden on the back of the antis. Sarah, and those who think any part of the 2nd Ammendment is outmoded, tell me this:
we've explained how removal of the 2nd would/could/does infringe on the rights of us all. Now why dont YOU tell us how the 2nd remaining IN PLACE infringes on YOUR rights, please? Think about your answer please, because you aren't going to get away with generalizations such as "I don't like guns" or such reasoning.
Your approach is a lot like somebody saying "I don't believe in God, it's utter nonsense, and you have no right to make me attend church".
Correct. But you extend it to "and if I DON'T believe in God, it's an infringement on my rights if anybody ELSE does, or talks about it, or I see a picture of God in a magazine, or anybody teaches their kids about God, or want to send them to religious schools instead of public school, or in any way dispute MY right to impose MY beliefs on YOU.
The existence of the 2nd harms none. Removal of it harms us all.
Your logic is as flawed as saying we don't need the constitutional protections of freedom of religion because nobody is oppressed in this country for religious reasons anymore. Or.......perhaps even more to your logic.....there is religious oppression in the world, so having an ammendment even SPEAKING to religious oppression encourages that very oppression. Let's not mention religion at all and perhaps religious oppression will go away.
Just in the interests of being fair here, unless I am much mistaken I don't believe anyone on this board has actually stood up in favour of abolishing the 2nd Amendment. Sarah asked an extremely valid question which was 'why is it carved in stone?' and you have given an excellent answer Bill. I think the area in question is what historians, lawyers, the Supreme Court and citizens have been debating for years...what exactly was the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and how exactly does it apply to the 21st century citizen.
There are always grey areas. Take your example of religious freedom. What if one persons religion infringes on the rights of another person or is contrary to an existing law of the land? Who determines which person's right is more important? I can give you an example from the UK. It is illegal to carry weapons in this country, including knives etcetera, but there are certain religions where ceremonial dress includes a knife or sword to be worn. Should the people who carry the knives or swords be above the law and be allowed to carry them? Or should they have their religious right infringed?
The 2nd Amendment may be above challenge, but the detail of it - the practical everyday application of it, is not.
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 01 2003 : 11:29:27 AM
|
Well, I am not attacking anybody, I am just throwing the burden of argument onto the anti's shoulders. I and others have gone on at length with points and facts about our position. So far, all we have gotten back are such things like "I don't like guns" and "but what about nuclear bombs, can everybody have them" type responses for the most part. I'd like somebody to tell ME how the 2nd Ammendment infringes on their rights in any way. Saying some religions require the wearing of a dagger, and your laws forbid carrying of any weapons, in context of religious freedoms, is the "what about nuclear bombs" kind of response. Firstly, it's not for me to say what the solution should be. It's your country. Usually, when two laws are at odds with each other, legislation should ammend one law so that they AREN'T at odds with each other.
IF one of those laws is a basic law such as our 2nd Ammendment, it's the other law that is at odds, and must be ammended.
We have only really had debates about "what the 2nd Ammendment really means" since FDR and the first gun control act. Up until then, citizens could own pretty much any kind of firearm they wanted.
Sarah expressed distress that our unwillingness to compromise further on the 2nd, and give up more of OUR firearms, will jeapordize her ability to own her musket. That logic right there is enough to be disturbing. I am asking HER, in return, how the 2nd Ammendment being in place violates ANY of her rights in any way.
"The 2nd Amendment may be above challenge, but the detail of it - the practical everyday application of it, is not."
Now THAT right there is about as disingenious a comment as ever been.
Self-contradictory. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Pretty simple statement. It means not infringed in any way. There was no qualification there. I don't see an "except" in there anywhere.
That there are people and politicians and folks with hidden agendas chipping away at it constantly........does NOT change the meaning.
It ignores the meaning, but doesnt change it.
By the way, I could be wrong, but the wearing of the Saudi dagger isn't a religious aspect, it's a manhood aspect. They aren't given it after traveling to Mecca or some such, they are given it when reaching the age of manhood - 13 I believe.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 01 2003 : 1:10:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
Well, I am not attacking anybody, I am just throwing the burden of argument onto the anti's shoulders. I and others have gone on at length with points and facts about our position. So far, all we have gotten back are such things like "I don't like guns" and "but what about nuclear bombs, can everybody have them" type responses for the most part. I'd like somebody to tell ME how the 2nd Ammendment infringes on their rights in any way.
Ok, just to clarify here (you know me and my need to clarify!  Are you referring to posters on the board? Or just people in general? quote:
Saying some religions require the wearing of a dagger, and your laws forbid carrying of any weapons, in context of religious freedoms, is the "what about nuclear bombs" kind of response.
I don't see that at ALL Bill!
quote:
Firstly, it's not for me to say what the solution should be. It's your country.
You have every right to express your opinion here Bill! I am expressing mine!
quote:
Usually, when two laws are at odds with each other, legislation should ammend one law so that they AREN'T at odds with each other. IF one of those laws is a basic law such as our 2nd Ammendment, it's the other law that is at odds, and must be ammended.
A reasonable response. It's a pity laws aren't so cut and dried...might be a few less lawyers in the world!
quote:
"The 2nd Amendment may be above challenge, but the detail of it - the practical everyday application of it, is not."
Now THAT right there is about as disingenious a comment as ever been.
Self-contradictory. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Pretty simple statement. It means not infringed in any way. There was no qualification there. I don't see an "except" in there anywhere.
That there are people and politicians and folks with hidden agendas chipping away at it constantly........does NOT change the meaning.
It ignores the meaning, but doesnt change it.
I am not so convinced! If you are right Bill, there would be no argument from anyone! The right to bear arms is fact - non-arguable. However, the definition of 'well-regulated', 'militia', and especially 'arms' can be, and has been, debated. Arms, generally interpreted as weapons that could be carried, have changed a great deal in the last two hundred years. In another two hundred years, who knows what type of weapon will fall into the category of 'arms'? Would a law that helps protect the user and others, for example, a trigger lock, or a storage regulation, but does not affect your right to keep and bear arms, be considered an in |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 01 2003 : 1:47:06 PM
|
I DO attack those like Brady and the billionaire who funds her and other gun grab orgs. They have an agenda. And it is NOT about protecting the public or reducing crime. I am not attacking those who fall for their feel good bullcrap and can't see the agenda. At least, I am not, until they call for a confiscation of all guns...then they are the enemy. Those people I try to enlighten and reason with, until it becomes clear there is NO reasoning with them.
As to the Sikh thing, and whether it is disingenious...sure it is. Same as the nuke question. You point out how one of YOUR laws intrudes on the freedoms of one of your society, and I am supposed to come up with an answer? Why? Your problem, not mine.
Asking all those questions about what is an arm, what does carry mean, what does infringe mean, what does well regulated mean, etc reminds me of the logic of a great socialist dissembler and enemy of the US Constitution.......the one who stated "it depends on what the definition of is, is." The same man married to another freedom hater, who talks about our Constitution being outmoded and written by old dead white men who owned slaves. Why does everybody avoid the obvious in answering these inane questions.......why do they avoid the written statements of those who WROTE the damn thing as to what those words meant and the intent? Answer: because it goes against the agenda of first belittling the men, then belittling the document, and finally abolishing portions of it to further an agenda of oppression. This is beginning to appear to be the grand old strategy.....wear proponents down by asking sophomoric, badgering questions of the same genre over and over again until we are worn down and give in, disregarding any rational answers we give. I have spoken to the definitions of that text in the document. Why ask again, other than to wear down by repeatedly asking them over and over again. If you don't like the answers the men who wrote the thing give for posterity so we are clear on the WHY, asking over and over again is not going to change it. This is why folks get frustrated and angry. Facts don't dissuade you, reason doesnt dissuade you, statistics dont dissuade you, historical precedence and evidence don't dissuade you from your agenda to find any means by which to shred a document designed to keep people free.
I don't know what more I can do in this matter, except be ready to fight when those who fall for this crap come to disarm us all.
To answer your one question though, on types of arms. IF the document is designed to provide the last resort for a people to be free from oppression of their government....and it IS......then it follows that the "arms" talked about are always the same kinds as would be used against the citizenry. Musket for musket, Sharps rifle for Sharps rifle, Tommy gun for Tommy gun, M-16 for M-16, and main battle rifle (whatever that turns out to be) for main battle rifle. The antis and those with the agenda of gradual oppression will settle for leaving us with 18th century technology while they use the latest arms against is, if that's the best they can achieve. AFTER killing all those who would rebel against the oppression, they know they can write whatever laws, and impose them, as they wish.
Oh, you are gloom and dooming, you say. Right. I have already pointed out three times in the history of THIS country when oppression was enabled by gun control. I have NEVER seen ANY evidence of a reduction in ANY kind of crime resulting FROM gun control. The WORST murder rate, and gun violence rate, and violent crime rate is to be found in EVERY city that prohibits guns entirely. Why is that I wonder? How can that be? Washington DC, New York City, Chicago Illinois, Los Angeles are the murder captitols of this country. Explain that one. You can't without making vacuous excuses. And please don't quote Sarah Brady. That will guarantee I go ballistic.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 01 2003 : 3:21:42 PM
|
Now, on the types of arms, somebody is going to say "surely you don't think everybody should have an M-16??????
I don't think everybody SHOULD have one, I think everybody of age and responsibility (no felonies, violent misdemeanors, history of drugs or mental illness) should be ALLOWED to have one if they wish.
Switzerland is a prime example. EVERY man and boy between the ages of 16 and 45 are considered part of their home army, and EVERY one of them has in their closet a fully auto/semi auto state of the art main battle rifle. They have the lowest crime rate, and murder rate in the world. How can that be?
Well, for one thing, they are mighty particular who they allow to immigrate into their country. One reason. Commit a crime there, and they don't give a crap if you were disadvantaged, abused as a child, or your ancestors had been slaves 200 years ago - THEY HAMMER YOU. And everybody knows it. Moreover, it's lunacy to go to a country that is well armed, knowing what's in every closet, and try to break in for drug money. Or try a cowardly drive-by and the entire populace can return fire on full auto. Their government trusts their people with responsibility. Why doesnt ours?
Bottom line is, everybody has a main battle rifle, yet they have the lowest crime rate in the world. Why don't you explain that one to folks? Obviously, it isnt the gun, or possession of guns, or the availability of guns that is the problem.
A government does not trust its people, is a government which itself is not to be trusted. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 03 2003 : 10:52:40 PM
|
So where was I?
Oh yes, cultural differences.
Anyone know where one might view the UK Olympic Pistol Team practicing their skills? |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kurt
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 27 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 04 2003 : 07:36:48 AM
|
I will check with my Welshman friend at work but from our conversations, I guess you find the UK Olympic Pistol Team in one of the colonies. Maybe you must be on active duty in the armed forces. It didn't sound like airguns were allowed. I do know that to own a gun in the UK, first you must become a member of a shooting club. Then you are allowed to buy one single shot long gun in .22 that you must keep locked up at the club. Pistols that work with gunpowder are out of the question.
Makes New York gun control look good by comparison. In NY, to buy a long gun, the store calls the FBI and if they don't mind, you can buy it. (In New Jersey, to buy the same long gun, you must wait 30 days. If you come to NY, they see that your residence is NJ and you still must wait the 30 days.)
Getting a pistol in NY is theoretically better than in the UK. From speaking with Hunter Safety Instructor, it is illegal to touch a pistol in NY unless 1) a NYS licenced instructor hands it to you or 2) you have a NYS pistol permit.
I have considered getting a flintlock pistol, but it seems like too much work. If you never have any black powder, shot, or flints in the house, you're OK. Otherwise, you must go before the county official (which is different depending on which county you live in. Usually a Sheriff or a Judge.) and explain your need for such a thing. Should the official deem you worthy, you are allowed to buy a NYS Pistol Permit. (You must go get a separate permit for every pistol.) Now you can go buy that flintock pistol. Of course, if you forget and leave it locked in a box locked in the trunk of your car and drive to New York City, you can be arrested since NYC does not accept NYS permits. |
Yr. obt. svt.
Kurt |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 04 2003 : 10:07:24 AM
|
| Yes, well we wouldn't want those gangs running amok with flintlock pistols, would we? |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.42 seconds |
 |
|
2nd Ammendment and Killdeer
