Can someone argue this logic?

[Patriot123]

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

[gutteck]

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

You are 15 years old.
You are a Jew.
You support Zionism.

It is interesting how a young individual like yourself so eagerly defends the establishment.





/

[hypnagogue]

This isn't a particularly difficult argument to rebuke. If you look at the usage of the phrase "the people" throughout the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, you'll find that it unanimously refers to individuals and not the States. This is even shown within the 2nd amendment, where it refers to both the State and the people separately.

The correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment would be; In order that the states may remain free and secure they must have the capacity to form militias. To secure that capacity, the right to both own and operate arms are protected for individuals.


You are 15 years old.
You are a Jew.
You support Zionism. snotty, dumbass responses like this would be a fast track off these boards if I were running this place.

[Patriot123]

You are 15 years old.
You are a Jew.
You support Zionism.

It is interesting how a young individual like yourself so eagerly defends the establishment.





/

Defends? Your level of intelligence is really just hilarious. For starters, I was trying to ask anyone if they could help me argue this logic about the second amendment. Second of all, so I see you hate Jews now, huh? Interesting. And your a Christian. So why not pack your bags and go move to Rome? Just wanted to show you how stupid your logic was, there ;)
Oh, and of course. I'm a Zionist. I support the right of Israel to exist. And I "support Zionism?" So I support support the right of Israel to exist? Okay, then... Let me guess, you don't, and you support exiling thousands of Jews into... Nowhere? And having them be slaughtered? Great way to pave the road towards peace :)

Anyone else who knows a thing or two about second amendment arguments care to explain this to me?



This isn't a particularly difficult argument to rebuke. If you look at the usage of the phrase "the people" throughout the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, you'll find that it unanimously refers to individuals and not the States. This is even shown within the 2nd amendment, where it refers to both the State and the people separately.

The correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment would be; In order that the states may remain free and secure they must have the capacity to form militias. To secure that capacity, the right to both own and operate arms are protected for individuals.

Of course... That never hit me :p Of course. Thank you so much :)

[Zarxrax]

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

I don't see a problem. What is a militia? A militia is the PEOPLE.

[Patriot123]

Yes, but the argument the person was trying to form was that the right to bear arms isn't an individual right, but the right of a militia.

[gutteck]

snotty, dumbass responses like this would be a fast track off these boards if I were running this place.

If you were running the place it would be hilaryclintonforums.com....

[ionlyknowy]

it follows that, each person has a right to bear arms so that they can form a militia.

Ask your friend how a militia can be formed without the people that make up the militia being able to own guns.

Here is the definition of militia

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary[1] citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency; without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:

* Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
* The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

[Dr.3D]

A militia is not the National Guard.... so if we wish to form a militia, the people have to have arms. When a militia is formed, everyday people with arms, band together to make a militia. These militias are a safeguard to the freedom of the state. Those who say the National Guard are militias don't understand the idea nor the name of 'National Guard'. The word National is does not reflect anything about a state militia. The president, at will can call in the National Guard as a part of the nations military and thus it does not constitute a state militia.

These being the case, a militia would have to be formed from the citizens of the states they live in and would be a private state army. Letting the government have all the control of all armed forces, is not in the best interests of this nation and certainly not any member state of the union. To be able to protect the United States Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, it is necessary that there be the ability to form militias in each and every state. The national army given orders by the United States Government would not be able to protect the Constitution from the possibility of the said Government being the domestic enemy.

[Patriot123]

A militia is not the National Guard.... so if we wish to form a militia, the people have to have arms. When a militia is formed, everyday people with arms, band together to make a militia. These militias are a safeguard to the freedom of the state. Those who say the National Guard are militias don't understand the idea nor the name of 'National Guard'. The word National is does not reflect anything about a state militia. The president, at will can call in the National Guard as a part of the nations military and thus it does not constitute a state militia.

These being the case, a militia would have to be formed from the citizens of the states they live in and would be a private state army. Letting the government have all the control of all armed forces, is not in the best interests of this nation and certainly not any member state of the union. To be able to protect the United States Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, it is necessary that there be the ability to form militias in each and every state. The national army given orders by the United States Government would not be able to protect the Constitution from the possibility of the said Government being the domestic enemy.

But what about individual rights? Yes, it is the right of a militia to bear arms. But what about individuals?

[gutteck]

Second of all, so I see you hate Jews now, huh? Interesting.


I don’t hate Jews. I oppose Zionist Jews. Jews that are not Zionist are on my side.



And your a Christian. So why not pack your bags and go move to Rome? Just wanted to show you how stupid your logic was, there ;)


Yes I am a Christian. I never told you to move anywhere.



Oh, and of course. I'm a Zionist. I support the right of Israel to exist. And I "support Zionism?" So I support support the right of Israel to exist? Okay, then... Let me guess, you don't, and you support exiling thousands of Jews into... Nowhere? And having them be slaughtered? Great way to pave the road towards peace :)


My problem are your Zionist views. I know and many know that Zionism does not mean “right of Israel to exist”.

[Dr.3D]

But what about individual rights? Yes, it is the right of a militia to bear arms. But what about individuals?

Individuals are what militias are formed from. People need to practice with their own firearms to maintain the proper level of marksmanship. We can't just call everybody to form a militia and then hand them firearms and expect them to be able to know how to use them properly.

[Patriot123]

I don’t hate Jews. I oppose Zionist Jews. Jews that are not Zionist are on my side.



Yes I am a Christian. I never told you to move anywhere.



My problem are your Zionist views. I know and many know that Zionism does not mean “right of Israel to exist”.
1) You oppose Zionist Jews. So again, you support exiling millions of Jews into nowhere for them to be slaughtered by angry Muslims? Nice :)

2) You implied it ;)

3) ...Zionism is the belief that Israel has the right to exist. You'd better get your facts straight, buddy.

[Zarxrax]

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

More quotes: http://www.vtgunsmiths.com/arms/ffquote.html

[Patriot123]

Individuals are what militias are formed from. People need to practice with their own firearms to maintain the proper level of marksmanship. We can't just call everybody to form a militia and then hand them firearms and expect them to be able to know how to use them properly.

Well yes, but legally speaking according to what the argument is based off of, it just says militias have a right to bear arms. But then again, the argument which I posted is obviously misconstrued. It's obviously the right of both... Right?

[ionlyknowy]

Individuals are what militias are formed from. People need to practice with their own firearms to maintain the proper level of marksmanship. We can't just call everybody to form a militia and then hand them firearms and expect them to be able to know how to use them properly.

every state cannot have a cash of weapons stored away and when something bad happens, the citizens go to this place and take the weapons...

think about when the constitution was written...


Who would be in charge of the weapons cash, the ordinary person..

[Dr.3D]

Well yes, but legally speaking according to what the argument is based off of, it just says militias have a right to bear arms. But then again, the argument which I posted is obviously misconstrued. It's obviously the right of both... Right?

The people are the militia. Each and every single person in a state may become a part of the militia at any time should the need arise. So yes, the individual is the militia.

[gutteck]

1) You oppose Zionist Jews. So again, you support exiling millions of Jews into nowhere for them to be slaughtered by angry Muslims? Nice :)


Admitting to being a Zionist should raise the eyebrows the same as admitting being a member of the KKK. Zionism is a form of supremacist philosophy in which Jews are to rule over non Jews.




2) You implied it ;)
.

Where?

[Patriot123]

The people are the militia. Each and every single person in a state may become a part of the militia at any time should the need arise. So yes, the individual is the militia.

But then wouldn't the people only be able to bear arms if a militia arises?

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, but the argument the person was trying to form was that the right to bear arms isn't an individual right, but the right of a militia.

If you read the federalist and anti-federalist papers, it will become much more clear to you exactly what our Founders meant by those words. :) They saw ALL Americans as being part of the militia.

The Militia is nothing other than an armed citizenry. :)

[Patriot123]

Admitting to being a Zionist should raise the eyebrows the same as admitting being a member of the KKK. Zionism is a form of supremacist philosophy in which Jews are to rule over non Jews.




Where?

Buddy, you're really beginning to irk me, to be honest.

Where is Zionism defined as that? Or is it simply a "conspiracy?" I presume that over your logic. But either way, I don't quite see how supporting a nations right to exist can be defined as a form of supremacist philosophy. And "Jews ruling over non-Jews?" That one actually made me laugh. Where exactly might it say that? In fairy land, perhaps? ;)

[nate895]

I made a knock-out-of the park speech on this, if only I could find the outline.

[Dr.3D]

But then wouldn't the people only be able to bear arms if a militia arises?

As I said before, the people have to have their own firearms and be practiced with them at all times. We can't have a pile of firearms around someplace and then just give them to the people when needed. Who would we trust to keep that pile of firearms anyway? It would be much too easy for that pile of firearms to be taken away just as they were needed. Each person keeping his own firearms is the only way to ensure they are distributed and ready should the need arise. Each person has the obligation to maintain his own firearm and be able to use it properly should the need arise. People can not practice with firearms they don't have.

[luke-gr]

Zarxrax, some great quotes there. The one from George Washington really struck home.

The second amendment has been in place for 125 years and accepted and understood as the individual's right to bear arms. This has never changed. I fail to see how it can be argued really.

[LibertyOfOne]

It says the right of the people to bare arms. It's so clear I don't know how to make it clearer. If it wasn't the right of the people than why did the government let the people own arms for over 200 years? The logic does not follow. A militia is made up of people. The people who have the indivdual right to bare arms. They also have the right to form a militia as they so choose. The part well regulated means well prepared. People inherently have rights. The government's so called purpose is to protect those rights not grant them. You have the right to bare arms irregardless of the government. It's up to you if you want to exercise them.

[LibertyEagle]

Gutteck,

You need to knock it off with the Zionist stuff. The TS asked an honest question and deserves an honest answer.

[jyakulis]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=66zOgVAnIgE

[CountryboyRonPaul]

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

If Jefferson would have wanted only the militia to have weapons, then normal citizens would not have had guns under the early union.

This was not the case.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

"the people" is different than "the militia"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4MQmOEA1s8g

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Buddy, you're really beginning to irk me, to be honest.

Where is Zionism defined as that? Or is it simply a "conspiracy?" I presume that over your logic. But either way, I don't quite see how supporting a nations right to exist can be defined as a form of supremacist philosophy. And "Jews ruling over non-Jews?" That one actually made me laugh. Where exactly might it say that? In fairy land, perhaps? ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379

However, it was revoked a few years back.

[Theocrat]

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

I have a great link that should help you get a better understanding of the Founders' intent for the Second Amendment. It is called "The Founders Constitution," and you can view it here (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendII.html). I hope this helps you, Patriot123.

[Anti Federalist]

It protects and mentions more than one natural right, just as many of the other amendments do.

By natural right, I mean a a right that pre-empts any government, a right that belongs to each person regardless of time or place or government, simply by virtue of being born a human being, you have these rights.

The two mentioned in the 2nd address the right of people, collectively, to provide for their common defense at a local or community level, and the second part addresses the right of each and every person to keep and bear arms as an individual.

What kind of arms?

Well, as Tenche Cox put it:

"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 has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

I'm an absolutist when comes to this, I think that every weapon that is commonly issued or used by a modern day soldier should be available for purchase by a citizen as well. Yes, that includes full auto rifles, grenades, rocket launchers and so on.

Bottom line the 2nd protects two, related but different, rights at the same time.

[nate895]

Hey, Anti Federalist, can I own a fully operational tank in your opinion, that would be fun.

[WRellim]

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

Ask him to define the "militia."

If he says "national guard" -- tell him that doesn't make any sense, because if they are under the command of the US Executive branch and the US Army Generals, then they are really just the "Army Reserve" (aka a local "standing army" ...just one that occasionally sits down) but under a different name (aka euphemism), but they are NOT militia.

Ask him again to define the "militia."

[JordanQ72]

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

Reasoning changes, facts don't. If it was about militias being armed, it would have read


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

It doesn't. The first part is also irrelevant. The founders could have been high on mushrooms and wrote


"Fried chicken being delicious, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And it would mean the exact same thing. Bearing arms is a right of the people.

[hatefalseweight]

All of the bill of rights are individual rights, not collective rights. It would make no sense for only the 2nd amendment to be a collective right. Also, just look up a dictionary from back then on what a militia was - individual gunowners.

This is a basic result of being brainwashed in the communist schools - collectivism = govt. owns everything, controls the money supply (and counterfeits it) , taxes you like a slave etc. and only gives you a gun to go work as an agent of the govt. to go opppress other slaves who get out of line.

Ed Vieira has written extensively on this subject. If you read some of his stuff and , for instance, the Georgia militia law from the 1760's , you will obviously see what the 2nd amendment is all about. Dr. V is also very big on sound money. He has authored laws for states such as New Hampshire to do transactions in gold and silver. He has writtten a huge book called "Pieces of Eight" on money.

Here is an excerpt :

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin12.htm

In every Colony and independent State from the mid-1600s to the late 1700s immediately prior to ratification of the Constitution, the Militia consisted of every able-bodied male, typically from 16 to 50 or 60 years of age, each of whom was required by law to keep in his personal possession at home a firearm suitable for military use (for most of them a musket or rifle, for some a brace of pistols), together with a supply of ammunition (assembled cartridges, black powder, and lead shot); a bayonet, tomahawk, or sword; and other accoutrements necessary to outfit an infantry soldier or cavalry trooper.

Throughout the original thirteen Colonies and States, the laws required each Militiaman to buy his own arms and ammunition in the free market--thus implicitly guaranteeing the existence and operation of such a market. If he were under 21 years of age, or an apprentice or servant, though, a Militiaman could require his parents or employer to supply him with a suitable firearm and ammunition. If he were one of the working poor, he might receive assistance from his local government in obtaining a job through which to earn the money to buy them. And local governments, or very often the Militia, provided publicly owned arms to those individuals too poor to purchase them on their own account. That is, We the People always required themselves to provide themselves with firearms, either directly as individuals, or indirectly through the Militia in which they served or the public officials whom they elected.

[Anti Federalist]

Hey, Anti Federalist, can I own a fully operational tank in your opinion, that would be fun.

You already can do that, there are quite few people around the country who do own one.

I know a few people who have miniguns mounted on private helicopters as well.

But try to get your hands on a LAWS rocket or RPG.

[CountryboyRonPaul]

Hey, Anti Federalist, can I own a fully operational tank in your opinion, that would be fun.

This guy does, and he has somehow managed to resist the temptation to go around blowing up every human being he sees. :rolleyes:

http://www.milvehtechfound.com/

And this guy used to own a functional F-104 Starfighter, one of the fastest Jet Fighters America ever built.

http://yarchive.net/mil/private_f104.html

[Truth Warrior]

In a life and death crisis, often seconds count. The police are minutes away. What are you gonna do?

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws ( including government thugs ) will have guns.

Hitler and Stalin were both HUGE fans of gun registration ........ control ......... and then confiscation.

"IF the government cannot trust the people with guns, can the people trust the government?"

"Governments prefer unarmed peasants."

"Politicians love disarmed peasants."

[newbitech]

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

So they left out the "and" and threw in "being necessary to".

This is how I read it:

A well regulated militia shall not be infringed. AND
The security of a free state shall not be infringed. AND
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

All being necessary to each other.

[IcyPeaceMaker]

".....the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

The first part of the sentence is only redundant support for the Right.

[nate895]

You already can do that, there are quite few people around the country who do own one.

I know a few people who have miniguns mounted on private helicopters as well.

But try to get your hands on a LAWS rocket or RPG.

Hmm...I wonder how much an Abrams costs?

[Anti Federalist]

Hmm...I wonder how much an Abrams costs?

Don't know, I didn't see one of them, but here are some other interesting selections:

http://www.armyjeeps.net/Sabre/Sabre-4_small.JPG
This is a CVRT Sabre....the latest model of the Alvis CVRT series of
vehicles and the most updated/late model of the tanks in the
Scorpion/Simatar/Sabre evolution.

This vehicle has had a complete ground up restoration. EVERYTHING was
removed, refurbished, rebuilt or replaced with NEW/NOS parts. New tracks,
road wheels, sprockets, stabilizers. Rebuilt motor and drive train. New
military gel cell batteries x4, radios and intercom. New interior, new
periscopes etc. Turret was removed along with everything else....everything
was blasted, primed, painted correctly.

As the photos show, this is an exceptional vehicle and it took exceptional
measures to get to this condition. I have never seen a Sabre or Scorpion
that approaches this condition.

These Alvis CVRT family of vehicles are truly the Porsche Carreras of the
armored fighting vehicle world....they are incredible performers and are a
joy to drive. Fast and responsive, nimble, "tight" quality feel and
control....everything is very precise on these vehicles. Speeds in excess
of 60 mph. Can counter rotate the tracks to turn on a stationary point.
Seven speed sequential "hot shift" gear box with centrifugal clutch.
Reversing gear allows all seven speeds in reverse. Can counter rotate
tracks as well.

7.5 feet tall, 7.5 feet wide and 16.5 feet long. Approximately 18,000 lbs.
Also comes with a 30MM Rardan Cannon ( Non Gun )and a Coaxial .30 Cal.
M.G. ( Non Gun )


Price at $79k
Location: Louisville , Kentucky
http://www.armyjeeps.net/M114/M114-3_small.jpg
M114-A1-E1 , APC

A beautiful M114 , fully restored and complete with the M139 Gun , 20MM . It has a Title and is completely legal , garage kept and has never set out . It is definitely one of the finest and most complete I have seen .

Gun has;
TVS-2 "crew served" night vision scope with mounting brackets on the 20MM gun, M120 telescope with mount on gun, Flexible ammo feed chute with cover, Full set of new special size ammo boxes, all with proper markings, Power feed system for M139 gun, Extra feed chute for M139 gun.

Also included with vehicle;
Full set of manuals for vehicle and gun system, New surfboard with all attachments, Have all periscopes, some sealed and boxed N.O.S, M-19 periscopes withy spare heads and full IR power unit, Drive's M26 periscope, Full set of radios- all working, Gun mounts for Cal. 50 or M-60, Full set of all radios-all working, CVC Helmut with radio cable, Radio headsets(3), Intercoms, One complete spare set of tracks, Pioneer tools, Tool and manual bags, Two Laws rocket tubes (inert), Grenade boxes, Signal flags- new in the box, Fire extinguishers, 24Volt jumper cable, First aid kit, Tow cable, Gas can, Plus many small miscellaneous items and parts, most N.O.S.

This M114A1E1 is titled and totally legal.
Price: $66,500.00
Location : Herley , NM 88043
http://www.armyjeeps.net/chieftian/chieftan-10_small.JPG
British Chieftain Main Battle Tank (Two to Choose From)
Running and ready to go. The Chieftain went into service in 1967. Only 900 were built, it is 24' 8" long, 11' 6" wide and 9' 6" tall, the weight is 50 tons. It is equipped with a 120MM high velocity gun (which is 19' long), NBC ventilation system and a Leyland model L-60 #4 mark 7A two stroke 12 cylinder vertically opposed , 750 HP multi-fuel engine.

We have several major components and spare parts available for these Tanks.
Price: $45,000. ea.
Location: Texas

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

[nate895]

This M114A1E1 is titled and totally legal.
Price: $66,500.00
Location : Herley , NM 88043
http://www.armyjeeps.net/chieftian/chieftan-10_small.JPG
British Chieftain Main Battle Tank (Two to Choose From)
Running and ready to go. The Chieftain went into service in 1967. Only 900 were built, it is 24' 8" long, 11' 6" wide and 9' 6" tall, the weight is 50 tons. It is equipped with a 120MM high velocity gun (which is 19' long), NBC ventilation system and a Leyland model L-60 #4 mark 7A two stroke 12 cylinder vertically opposed , 750 HP multi-fuel engine.

We have several major components and spare parts available for these Tanks.
Price: $45,000. ea.
Location: Texas

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

That looks like to be the biggest bang for the buck, almost literally. :D

[Anti Federalist]

That looks like to be the biggest bang for the buck, almost literally. :D

Yar, no foolin'.:D

I'd like to poke around that 12 cylinder two stroke multi fuel engine.

The NBC ventilation might come in handy as well.;)

[mediahasyou]

Keep it simple.

What is a militia?

n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

If you are a citizen you, my friend, are entitled to the 2nd amendment. Assuming you are an ordinary citizen, you are entitled to the 2nd amendment. So you, the individual, can essentially make up your own militia. Whether that be a militia of 1000 or an "Army of One".

The point is that everyone is entilted to defending themselves. Not just "Professional Soldiers" of the state. Our fathers knew the government, like fruit, over time would spoil. So they gave us the 2nd amendment to defend ourselves from all evils, whether it be criminals or the government.

Yes, the government can go bad. The state can be evil. We've seen it before with: Hitler and Stalin and others. When things get bad, Our second amendment not only guarantees the right to defence, but also: the Right to Revolution and overthrow evil.

[Anti Federalist]

Some outstanding full auto footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f7wTMnWbqQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7ELhy4_0hM&feature=related

[nate895]

Some outstanding full auto footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f7wTMnWbqQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7ELhy4_0hM&feature=related

I think those men are ready for full scale combat.

There ain't nothing that'll get a guy going like guns, fire, and explosions, except, perhaps, naked women.