FA+
Shop
1187
Views
Views
17
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 864 x 634
File Size 39.3 kB
Report this content
More from Karno
There's nothing like firing an automatic weapon in front of a big american flag to make your heart swell with patriotism. Damn, I like America!
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 864 x 634px
File Size 39.3 kB
The US has been invaded by a major foreign power. The War of 1812, and you could probably argue the Civil War could have fallen into that classification too. The simple fact is in a modern, mechanized warfare if the U.S. military were somehow defeated on their home turf most citizen-owned weapons would be no match for, say, a T-80.
And actually the full text is "In order to maintain a well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The gun lobby wants people to ignore the first clause since it shows the intent of the amendment, which was to maintain a self-defense force in a time when a professional militia, like the modern-day National Guard, didn't exist. The law in front of the Supreme Court right now argues that exact case, does the amendment exist to allow the states to arm citizens for a militia, i.e. the Indiana National Guard, or does it allow citizens to arm themselves?
And actually the full text is "In order to maintain a well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The gun lobby wants people to ignore the first clause since it shows the intent of the amendment, which was to maintain a self-defense force in a time when a professional militia, like the modern-day National Guard, didn't exist. The law in front of the Supreme Court right now argues that exact case, does the amendment exist to allow the states to arm citizens for a militia, i.e. the Indiana National Guard, or does it allow citizens to arm themselves?
the original intent, as i understand it was the citizen as the founding fathers knew that armed citizenry insured freedom of self defence. ii it written in plain text the case is the comma between the militia and the latter half. i see it as yet another attempt to strip us citizens of there constitutional rites as this country slips further into fascism
my two cents
i was referring to modern day invasions. and you are right about the tanks :P but the states took on the greatest military force of it's day and won, twice. so i wouldn't count them out just yet, though you do bring up some valid points.
thank you for replying loved the post
--Rick
my two cents
i was referring to modern day invasions. and you are right about the tanks :P but the states took on the greatest military force of it's day and won, twice. so i wouldn't count them out just yet, though you do bring up some valid points.
thank you for replying loved the post
--Rick
First, it's "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." Second, the gun lobby doesn't want people to "ignore the first part", since it dovetails beautifully with the second. To quote a few people involved with the adoption of the Constitution, it's Bill of Rights, and the drafting of the original State Constitutions:
George Mason, during the VA Ratification Convention: "Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great-Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally difusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?"
Note that "disarming the people" is synonymous with "destroying the militia" and in contrast to the existence of a standing Army.
Later during the same debate, he asked and then answered a rhetorical question which makes the point far more clearly:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."
Tench Coxe, after the PA Ratification Convention, arguing that the continued existence of the Federal Army was not necessarily a threat to liberty: "The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The Militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia."
Again, "The Militia" is synonymous with "the People", again in this case "yeomanry of America from sixteen [years of age] to sixty".
There are many other examples, but for the sake of space I'll omit them and refer you and anyone else reading this to the Amicus briefs on both sides in the SCOTUS case you mentioned (District of Columbia v Heller for anyone who wants to look it up). "The Militia" is what is referred to as a "term of art". That is, a technical legal term, referring in this case to the body of the general population capable of handling weapons.
It's also important to note that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically a right of "The People". "The People" does not mean state governments, nor congress. It refers to the individual citizens of the united states. For contrast, look at the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. When the framers meant state government, they said so. This is why freedom of assembly applies to the Code Pink types protesting outside the Marine Recruiting Office in Berkeley and not just to the ability of state governments to assemble their legislatures ("The right of the people to peaceably assemble"). See also the fourth amendment ("the right of the people to be secure in their persons...").
As for your assertion that citizens owned with small arms would be unable to effectively oppose a modern military, I'm afraid that you're not thinking it through. We have many historical and modern examples of small groups of unevenly-trained people with small arms mounting effective resistance to modern militaries. I spent a year in Iraq back in 2003-04 helping to deal with one such example. Even if people are -truly- limited to small arms (pistols, rifles, shotguns, and man-portable machine guns) with no light weapons (that is, no MANPADs, no mortars, no anti-armor weapons, no heavy machine guns), they are only so limited until the first opportunity they have to loot and/or commandeer more advanced weaponry. Again, we have both historical and more recent real-world examples demonstrating that a civilian insurgency has this capability.
So, if you want to argue that there's no further need for an individual right to bear arms, that the amendment is obsolete and irrelevant to modern society, you can make that argument. But that's an argument to amend the constitution, not to ignore the bits that strike you as inconvenient. Once again I strongly suggest that you take the time to look up the Amicus briefs (on both sides) in DC v Heller. SCOTUSBlog and The Volokh Conspiracy have links somewhere in their archives to all of them.
Finally and actually on-topic: Great pic, Karno. Sorry to spam your comment section ;)
George Mason, during the VA Ratification Convention: "Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great-Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally difusing and neglecting the militia. [Here MR. MASON quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?"
Note that "disarming the people" is synonymous with "destroying the militia" and in contrast to the existence of a standing Army.
Later during the same debate, he asked and then answered a rhetorical question which makes the point far more clearly:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."
Tench Coxe, after the PA Ratification Convention, arguing that the continued existence of the Federal Army was not necessarily a threat to liberty: "The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The Militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia."
Again, "The Militia" is synonymous with "the People", again in this case "yeomanry of America from sixteen [years of age] to sixty".
There are many other examples, but for the sake of space I'll omit them and refer you and anyone else reading this to the Amicus briefs on both sides in the SCOTUS case you mentioned (District of Columbia v Heller for anyone who wants to look it up). "The Militia" is what is referred to as a "term of art". That is, a technical legal term, referring in this case to the body of the general population capable of handling weapons.
It's also important to note that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically a right of "The People". "The People" does not mean state governments, nor congress. It refers to the individual citizens of the united states. For contrast, look at the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. When the framers meant state government, they said so. This is why freedom of assembly applies to the Code Pink types protesting outside the Marine Recruiting Office in Berkeley and not just to the ability of state governments to assemble their legislatures ("The right of the people to peaceably assemble"). See also the fourth amendment ("the right of the people to be secure in their persons...").
As for your assertion that citizens owned with small arms would be unable to effectively oppose a modern military, I'm afraid that you're not thinking it through. We have many historical and modern examples of small groups of unevenly-trained people with small arms mounting effective resistance to modern militaries. I spent a year in Iraq back in 2003-04 helping to deal with one such example. Even if people are -truly- limited to small arms (pistols, rifles, shotguns, and man-portable machine guns) with no light weapons (that is, no MANPADs, no mortars, no anti-armor weapons, no heavy machine guns), they are only so limited until the first opportunity they have to loot and/or commandeer more advanced weaponry. Again, we have both historical and more recent real-world examples demonstrating that a civilian insurgency has this capability.
So, if you want to argue that there's no further need for an individual right to bear arms, that the amendment is obsolete and irrelevant to modern society, you can make that argument. But that's an argument to amend the constitution, not to ignore the bits that strike you as inconvenient. Once again I strongly suggest that you take the time to look up the Amicus briefs (on both sides) in DC v Heller. SCOTUSBlog and The Volokh Conspiracy have links somewhere in their archives to all of them.
Finally and actually on-topic: Great pic, Karno. Sorry to spam your comment section ;)
Very fine factual exposition. The bottom line is that the creation of the US government presented a clear and present danger to both the independence of the 13 sovereign states and to the freedom of the people, and both the Second Amendment and the First were designed to protect us from that danger. These protections are being eroded by fascist usurpations like McCain-Feingold and a plethora of gun control laws.
Tanks can not survive in anything other than the most barren desert environment without infantry to protect them, and that infantry is vulnerable to small arms. Take a look at what Molotov cocktails did to Soviet tanks during the Hungarian revolution.
Tanks can not survive in anything other than the most barren desert environment without infantry to protect them, and that infantry is vulnerable to small arms. Take a look at what Molotov cocktails did to Soviet tanks during the Hungarian revolution.
If you want the intent of the amendment, let us look at what the Founding Fathers said in other areas on the same topic.
For example Thomas Jefferson has said (as recorded on wikiquote):
* No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].
o Draft Constitution for Virginia (June 1776) This quote often appears with the parenthetical omitted and with the spurious extension, "The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
* I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
o Letter to Archibald Stuart (1791)
* Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights... and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him... and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right.
o Letter to Francis W. Gilmer (June 27, 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32
Many other quotes are similarly pro-Citizen, and I can find NO quotes that suggest Tom ever had an opinion that The People should be disarmed 'for their own good.'
For example Thomas Jefferson has said (as recorded on wikiquote):
* No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].
o Draft Constitution for Virginia (June 1776) This quote often appears with the parenthetical omitted and with the spurious extension, "The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
* I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
o Letter to Archibald Stuart (1791)
* Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights... and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him... and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right.
o Letter to Francis W. Gilmer (June 27, 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32
Many other quotes are similarly pro-Citizen, and I can find NO quotes that suggest Tom ever had an opinion that The People should be disarmed 'for their own good.'
Gentlefurs, by perusing the Federalist Papers, source of most of the commentary here, you will also find that the first phrase of the Second Amendment, addressing the 'militia', was written and intended, by the Founding Fathers, as a preamble, and nothing else. The second phrase enumerates the right engendered in the Amendment.
The militia is not the people. The people are the militia. There is a distinct difference.
The question (at the root of the matter) that is truly in front of SCOTUS is whether or not "the people" means the people en mass, or the people as individuals. Although I, for one, can see no difference between the two. For what is the people, other than a group of individuals? And how can the group have rights that are denied to the individual?
The militia is not the people. The people are the militia. There is a distinct difference.
The question (at the root of the matter) that is truly in front of SCOTUS is whether or not "the people" means the people en mass, or the people as individuals. Although I, for one, can see no difference between the two. For what is the people, other than a group of individuals? And how can the group have rights that are denied to the individual?
From the previous reply, is it is and they are rare to be intact. They get cut in half or quarters by a linear shape charge, then the slip stream breaks the sides away. Given that's like 300 knot air, typically the panels are heavily damaged by the time the hit the ground, often in the middle of what amounts to a minefield of UXO. Whoever owns that probably got a disarmed canister, rather than recovered one after use.
I will answer here, because all the major objects in the photo are mine, Except for Karno... The "bomb" is an experimental cluster bomb housing, I am currently looking up it's nomanclature. I just got it yesterday, along with stuff I have yet to photograph for inclusion on FA... but Karno's photo of himself cuddling up to one of my 9 foot long 5 inch Zuni rockets is strangely absent!
Is that an MG-34 or an MG-42? Both are well designed, but the MG-34 is soooo lovely. I've got an MG-34, but the receiver had been torched on orders of the Federalies. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand? Actually, they understand it very well, which is why they are trying to kill both the First and Second Amendments to the greatest extent that they can.
I love the U.S.A.! Hell yeah! Fuck yeah! Ass yeah! You know, I've been meeting more and more patriots that were born elsewhere. I'm a Brit originally, but this is my adopted homeland and it rocks. You're Icelandic, and whereas the social mores may have been a little difficult to get used to you say you like it here. The people whom were born here however seem to have nothing but bad things to say about this place.
Ya. And it's not just the people who love their firearms, either. I'm a liberal, tree-hugging near-hippie wanna-be yuppie type. I honestly wanna vote for Hills ... but I like this country too. It would be nice to visit other places, sure... but I have only one home. And I defend it when I can... I just can't really defend Bush -.-
You're probably thinking the Maxim Gun, not the MG34.
The M2-HB is a decendant of the M1919 series, just upgunned for the .50 BMG round. Last I checked, 1919 came before 1934.
That said, a lot of modern Machine Guns are based off the MG42, which was a product improved version of the MG34, but still a different weapon.
I was the designated firearms researcher and expert for my RPG group.
The M2-HB is a decendant of the M1919 series, just upgunned for the .50 BMG round. Last I checked, 1919 came before 1934.
That said, a lot of modern Machine Guns are based off the MG42, which was a product improved version of the MG34, but still a different weapon.
I was the designated firearms researcher and expert for my RPG group.
Interesting... I must admit I do not know much about weapons, apart from that MG34 fact (or what I've been told it was) - As for the MG42, as far as I know, it has been designed for two reasons : the 34 was too complex and long to produce in a Germany that began to suffer from shortage of time and materials, and its precise mechanic had the bad habit to jam easily from the dust. No doubt then it's at the same time the same weapon and a different one...
I'm an aerospace weapons physicist and a lover of traditional weapons. I have read a translation of the German MG-34 vs MG-42 competition, and the MG-34 worked just as well in dirt, mud, sand, and snow. The reason was simply lower production costs for the MG-42. The MG-34 had a lovely sculptured steel receiver with deliciously beautiful swoopy cuts that cost a lot of machining time for a negligible savings in weight. All of the changes discussed in the report were for faster lower cost production; the MG-34 worked great.
If it's a choice between the two, then it's a -34. The MG-42 has a more cone-shaped combination of flash hider and gas collector, and a distinctive ventilated barrel shroud with a squarish cross-section.
Aside from the faster barrel-changing, one would be better off with an MG-34 than an MG-42 — those -42s burn through ammo (and barrels, if you're not careful) faster than just about anything short of a MiniGun.
Aside from the faster barrel-changing, one would be better off with an MG-34 than an MG-42 — those -42s burn through ammo (and barrels, if you're not careful) faster than just about anything short of a MiniGun.
Comments