We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Anti Gun...check this out.. (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Well, critter, you had a good point. A knife is a very formidable weapon. Never runs out of ammunition. And doesn't leave any cases or any ballistic fingerprints behind . . . .

And landmark, according to the United States Code, "the militia of the United States" consists of all able-bodied males from the age of 17 to 45, and all females who are in the armed forces. It does exist, on paper, although the provisions of the Act of 1792 are sadly no longer in force:

Quote:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.


The Act was used by President Washington in 1794, when he had to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, when he was the last President to serve in uniform as the direct commander of a military force.

I agree that if we did have universal military training and recurrent periods of service for all men from the age of 17 to 45, like the Swiss and the Israelis, who adopted the Swiss program, we could dispense with parts of our current forces. We would have well over 50,000,000 men at arms, a sufficient force to deter any invader. However, it would not deter every terrorist, and a core of professional centurions would be needed to handle a lot of the technology.

Woland
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 23:28, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:09, acesover wrote:

Again I am not sure what is a lie in the article I posted. If it is wrong I apologize but I did not write it but rther only found it and posted it. To be honest that is one of the reasons I seldom use information on the net but rather just voice my own opinion. By doing differently this time it seemes like it bit me in the read end if what I posted is nothing but a lie.

Opinions are fine, but I think they need to be backed up with facts to be taken seriously.

And I think information off the web is also fine, but it should be cross checked against neutral or close to neutral sources before it is taken seriously.


Well no one really told me what was a lie in the article I referred too. So be it.

Your comment about opinions being fine but you feel should be backed up with facts I do not aagree with. Some people interput facts differently than others thus arrive at different opinions. Ths is what opinions are just that opinions arrived at by what people know and feel about what they know. Therefore two people could red the same set of facts and come up with different opinions.

Also I would like to comment on crossrefrencing articles on the web. If we did that we would never have time to do anything else because you could cross check your cross checks add infinitum.

Besides nothing we post here is earth shattering nor does it mean a darn thing in the whole scheme of things. It just gives us a place to let off steam and voice our "opinions". It proves nor settles anything.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 12:18, gdw wrote:
The tactic of bringing up the idea of everyone owning an uzi, or bazooka is an especially interesting fear tactic considering the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.


Not only that but the vast majority of gun related deaths (including murders) are with .22 caliber bullets. Not, big scary black assault rifles with "things that go up," (sic, Sen. McCarthy).
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 12:22, gdw wrote:
The idea of registering guns is just as laughable considering the large issues with gun smuggling, and stolen firearms kind of negates any usefulness of a registry.


That's where you miss the point of gun control. Lunatics in Congress don't care about what guns drug cartels and criminal gang bangers have.

They want to know what guns YOU and I have.
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 13:10, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 12:18, gdw wrote:
The tactic of bringing up the idea of everyone owning an uzi, or bazooka is an especially interesting fear tactic considering the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.


The point is to query whether any restriction is defensible. If someone takes the stance that everyone can own nuclear missiles, then there really isn't any point in discussing much else. OTOH if both sides agree that at least some weapons require restriction, then they can have a reasonable discussion about where the relevant differences lie.

For example, in Canada there is very little debate about whether the current restrictions on handguns is justified. The debate is sharply focused on the wisdom of registering "long guns". This is a very important step in the discussion.

John


Have you not followed the "progress" of the former Soviet Union? Anyone CAN buy a nuclear missile for the right price.

I would agree there is some level of restriction that's fine.

If Congress wants to ban civilian ownership of nuclear technology, tanks, fighter jets, stealth aircraft, surface to air missiles, laser guided bombs, hey I'm fine with that.

My objection comes when we're talking about banning or restricting small arms that a human being can reasonably use to defend their own lives.

That's my beef. 2nd Amendment or not, I am a living breathing life form and I have every right to defend my own life and that of my family.
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 15:05, gdw wrote:
Does europe have free speech zones, and arrest people for dancing near monuments? Honestly, I don't know if they do have things like that.


That video made me sick. If I was the judge I'd dismiss the case with prejudice and order a number of those officers be taken into custody and charged with battery. I would also remand them without bail.

But then, this is Washington DC we're talking about. They enforce rules on the peasants that they themselves are not subjected to.
RobertSmith
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of RobertSmith
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 15:53, Woland wrote:
Well, balducci, if you read contemporary accounts, or consider what happened at the Battle of New Orleans, the Pennsylvania long rifle was far and away the most devastating weapon used in war during its heyday. Although a trained infantryman could maintain a good rate of fire with a musket, so could a skilled frontiersman with a rifle, and remember that the musket was used to fire in volleys, and not for effect; the militiamen who devastated the British at New Orleans were definitely aiming for effect.

My only conclusion is that the civilian of the day (at least in Pennsylvania and in areas later settled by Pennsylvania-German gunsmiths) could easily obtain a weapon that was superior to the military weaponry of his time.

Since the Founders wanted an armed population to be a counterweight to the authority of the State (and it is clear that that's what many of them wanted), it should be evident that they expected that the population would be armed with weapons comparable to those in the armouries of the State.

The fully-automatic M-14 was in my opinion the finest battle rifle ever deployed. It's a pity that most of the remaining stock were sold to Lithuania and other countries at $10 a piece rather than being made available to the public, as the M-1 Garands were/are.

But that's as far as I would take it, myself. Although Swiss militiamen (i.e. the vast majority of the male population, aged 18-45) keep fully automatic battle rifles or light assault rifles at home, along with at least 200 rounds of ammunition, only those who are identified as having the immediate need for them in an emergency keep explosives, rocket launchers, and the like. One of my neighbors once owned a surplus tank, but I don't think the mileage you'd get on one would encourage most people to train with one regularly.


As a side note, historians have found that the majority of rifles recovered from battle fields during the Civil War were never fired. Despite the number of dead, apparently troops on both sides had a problem with killing their countrymen. Otherwise the casualties in the Civil War would have been monumentally higher.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Quote:
That's my beef. 2nd Amendment or not, I am a living breathing life form and I have every right to defend my own life and that of my family.


As you know, the 2nd Amendment grants you no rights at all. The 2nd Amendment requires the government to respect the rights that are your endowment from your Creator.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-05-31 20:55, Woland wrote:
Quote:
That's my beef. 2nd Amendment or not, I am a living breathing life form and I have every right to defend my own life and that of my family.


As you know, the 2nd Amendment grants you no rights at all. The 2nd Amendment requires the government to respect the rights that are your endowment from your Creator.


Just curious, who holds them to this requirement? Because they have been REALLY slacking off.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Well, gdw, ultimately it is the people who hold them to this requirement . . . because we never did really believe in the Mandate of Heaven in this country . . . through the ballot box, the people hold their elected officials accountable to their solemn oaths or affirmations to defend the Constitution . . . who holds any usurper to any requirement, anyway?
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
But the govt is the one who has the power to lock up the people, so that certainly sounds like a good system for keeping them in line.

As for the ballot box, how well has that been working? When you vote for, say, someone who says they are for government transparency, and then has one of the least transparent american governments in history, I think it shows how well the ballot box holds them to anything.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Wait until next time . . . the system is not perfect . . . it is a horrible form of government . . . but it is vastly better than any other form of government . . . or no government.
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Speaking of government, the Supreme Court just ruled 8-0 (Kagan recused herself) that the Attorney General could not be held liable for essentially imprisoning, under false circumstances, a U.S. Citizen for 16 days.

The attorney general in question was Ashcroft. And Obama, in this case, sided with Bush and Co., supporting Ashcroft on the grounds that the case going to trial would set a precedence that could compromise national security.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I find it interesting on how many issues Kagan will have to recuse herself in the near future.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
The best item related to that story, EsnRedshirt, was the New Duranty Times editorial:

Quote:
But the 8-to-0 vote (Justice Elena Kagan was recused because of her involvement as solicitor general) was hardly as unanimous as it seemed . . . .


That's what I call whistling in the dark. 8-zilch is about as unanimous as it gets, my friends.
magicfish
View Profile
Inner circle
6785 Posts

Profile of magicfish
Gdw, you still don't have a clue.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-06-01 23:19, magicfish wrote:
Gdw, you still don't have a clue.

You really popped in just to say that? You're always thinking of me, I'm touched.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5042 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2011-06-01 21:24, Dannydoyle wrote:
I find it interesting on how many issues Kagan will have to recuse herself in the near future.

Or she could be like Scalia and Thomas and not recuse herself when it is clearly the ethical thing to do.
magicfish
View Profile
Inner circle
6785 Posts

Profile of magicfish
Quote:
On 2011-06-01 23:25, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-06-01 23:19, magicfish wrote:
Gdw, you still don't have a clue.

You really popped in just to say that? You're always thinking of me, I'm touched.

Yes I did because I'm puzzled that you don't make any intellectual progress. You still give the impression that the government is a separate unaccountable entity.
Of course we give the government the power to lock us up. It is absolutely necessary. We alao lock up the members of the government if they break the law. Hence the separation of the judicial and the legeslative and the executive. Yet you continue your hollywood movie fuelled attack on freedom and democracy. I suppose you take your right to protest your government for granted. For your sake, I'm glad youre not a syrian teenager.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Back to guns. Someone sent the following to me today:

This is why you should not keep guns in the house, care of one of Canada's best beloved sitcoms.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Anti Gun...check this out.. (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.18 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL