SNL attacks the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment

[Brian4Liberty]

Saturday Night Live ceased being funny some time ago, so there really is no need to watch the show, but their political views are sometimes stunning. This week they took aim at the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment, giving us their leftist opinion of what the Founding Fathers would think of gun control today. An amazing feat, as Seth Myers seems to believe he is both a time traveler and a mind reader...

The principles on which the Second Amendment were based have not changed at all, so Seth's opinion that the Founders would somehow change their minds is based on nothing more than the wishful thinking of a totalitarian tool, paving the road to Hell with his good intentions.

Totally missing the point of the Constitution. Shocking.


Since the Arizona shootings one of the leading topic of discussion has been more gun control legislation. ... Last Saturday Seth Meyers gave his own opinion on the matter in on a Saturday Night Live segment called “Constitutional Corner.”
...
Meyers points out the absurd nature of asking what the founding fathers would have thought about the “right to bear arms” today. As Meyers puts it, the founding fathers would probably take days to wrap their minds around the idea of “cars” before they even considered how the Second Amendment applies today. At the time the Second Amendment was written the most advanced “arms” were muskets which took a trained soldier 5-8 seconds to reload. ... Guns simply did not present the same danger to society in 1787 as they do now in 2011. In reflecting upon this fact, Meyers argues that the Second Amendment should be fully respected as long as it is only interpreted within the context of the late 18th century.

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/seth-meyers-of-snl-argues-right-to-bear-arms-only-includes-muskets


Links with video:

http://normgregory.com/2011/01/16/snls-take-on-the-2nd-amendment/

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/in-light-of-arizona-tragedy-seth-meyers-of-snl-argues-right-to-bear-arms-only-includes-muskets-video


This skit immediately followed, and is an example of what is supposed to pass for humor on SNL:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6bGug3co_E

[Elwar]

At the time the Second Amendment was written the most advanced “arms” were muskets which took a trained soldier 5-8 seconds to reload. ... Guns simply did not present the same danger to society in 1787 as they do now in 2011. In reflecting upon this fact, Meyers argues that the Second Amendment should be fully respected as long as it is only interpreted within the context of the late 18th century.


And those pesky canons?

I don't recall any part of the 2nd Amendment saying "obviously we don't mean canons".

Most large ships had enough canons and fire power that they could have wiped out whole towns.

[Pericles]

Nobody can load a fire a flintlock in 5 to 8 seconds. Well trained troops could fire at most 3 rounds a minute thus:

V. Half-cock Firelock! 1 motion.
Half bend the cock briskly, bringing down the elbow to the butt of the firelock.
VI. Handle, Cartridge ! 1 motion.
Bring your right hand short round to your pouch, slapping it hard, seize the cartridge, and bring it with a quick motion to your mouth, bite the top off down to the powder, covering it instantly with your thumb, and bring the hand as low as the chin, with the elbow down.
VII. Prime ! 1 motion
Shake the powder into the pan, and covering the cartridge again, place the three last fingers behind the hammer, with the elbow up.
VIII. Shut, Pan ! 2 motions.
1st. Shut your pan briskly, bringing down the elbow to the butt of the firelock, holding the cartridge fast in your hand.
2d. Turn the piece nimbly round before you to the loading position, with the lock to the front, and the muzzle at the height of the chin, bringing the right hand up under the muzzle; both feet being kept fast in this motion.
IX. Charge with Cartridge ! 2 motions.
1st. Turn up your hand and put the cartridge into the muzzle, shaking the powder into the barrel.
2d. Turning the stock a little towards you, place your right hand closed, with a quick and strong motion, upon the butt of the rammer, the thumb upwards, and the elbow down.
X. Draw, Rammer ! 2 motions.
1st. Draw your rammer with a quick motion half out, seizing it instantly at the muzzle back-handed.
2d. Draw it quite out, turn it, and enter it into the muzzle.
XI. Ram down, Cartridge ! 1 motion.
Ram the cartridge well down the barrel, and instantly recovering and seizing the rammer back-handed by the middle, draw it quite out, turn it, and enter it as far as the lower pipe, placing at the same time the edge of the hand on the butt-end of the rammer.
XII. Return, Rammer ! 1 motion.
Thrust the rammer home, and instantly bring up the piece with the left hand to the shoulder, seizing it at the same time with the right hand under the cock, keeping the left hand at the swell, and turning the body square to the front.
XIII. Shoulder, Firelock ! 2 motions.
1st. Bring down the left hand, placing it strong upon the butt.
2d. With a quick motion bring the right hand down by your side.

[CUnknown]

And those pesky canons?

I don't recall any part of the 2nd Amendment saying "obviously we don't mean canons".

Most large ships had enough canons and fire power that they could have wiped out whole towns.

Were citizens allowed to own cannons in the 18th century?

[Pericles]

Were citizens allowed to own cannons in the 18th century?
Of course - there was no such thing as an illegal weapon until 1934.

[HazyHusky420]

SNL sucks. I miss Mad TV =(

[amonasro]

SNL has become far too political. Same with 30 Rock. Although funny at times, they're both partisan mouthpieces used to hammer home the left-right paradigm and continue the NBC status quo.

[HazyHusky420]

SNL has become far too political. Same with 30 Rock. Although funny at times, they're both partisan mouthpieces used to hammer home the left-right paradigm and continue the NBC status quo.

There's nothing wrong with being political. It's partisanship that needs to die. SNL was awesome in the 90s. Even when it was political they made fun of both "sides".

[CUnknown]

I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.

[HazyHusky420]

I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.

I don't know about nukes (they shouldn't even exist) but I have nothing against tanks so long as they don't slow down traffic and fit in one lane. I wouldn't worry about the cannon no more than a gun sitting in someone's car. Either one can kill somebody.

[fisharmor]

Nobody can load a fire a flintlock in 5 to 8 seconds. Well trained troops could fire at most 3 rounds a minute thus:

V. Half-cock Firelock! 1 motion.
Half bend the cock briskly, bringing down the elbow to the butt of the firelock.
VI. Handle, Cartridge ! 1 motion.
Bring your right hand short round to your pouch, slapping it hard, seize the cartridge, and bring it with a quick motion to your mouth, bite the top off down to the powder, covering it instantly with your thumb, and bring the hand as low as the chin, with the elbow down.
VII. Prime ! 1 motion
Shake the powder into the pan, and covering the cartridge again, place the three last fingers behind the hammer, with the elbow up.
VIII. Shut, Pan ! 2 motions.
1st. Shut your pan briskly, bringing down the elbow to the butt of the firelock, holding the cartridge fast in your hand.
2d. Turn the piece nimbly round before you to the loading position, with the lock to the front, and the muzzle at the height of the chin, bringing the right hand up under the muzzle; both feet being kept fast in this motion.
IX. Charge with Cartridge ! 2 motions.
1st. Turn up your hand and put the cartridge into the muzzle, shaking the powder into the barrel.
2d. Turning the stock a little towards you, place your right hand closed, with a quick and strong motion, upon the butt of the rammer, the thumb upwards, and the elbow down.
X. Draw, Rammer ! 2 motions.
1st. Draw your rammer with a quick motion half out, seizing it instantly at the muzzle back-handed.
2d. Draw it quite out, turn it, and enter it into the muzzle.
XI. Ram down, Cartridge ! 1 motion.
Ram the cartridge well down the barrel, and instantly recovering and seizing the rammer back-handed by the middle, draw it quite out, turn it, and enter it as far as the lower pipe, placing at the same time the edge of the hand on the butt-end of the rammer.
XII. Return, Rammer ! 1 motion.
Thrust the rammer home, and instantly bring up the piece with the left hand to the shoulder, seizing it at the same time with the right hand under the cock, keeping the left hand at the swell, and turning the body square to the front.
XIII. Shoulder, Firelock ! 2 motions.
1st. Bring down the left hand, placing it strong upon the butt.
2d. With a quick motion bring the right hand down by your side.

Yep, the average unschooled hillbilly could do this three times in a minute with loose powder involved, and not blow off his fingers... but men who read Latin and Greek would have trouble figuring out a car.
Riiiiiiiight.




I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.

Riddle me this... do you have any idea how much cost there is in a single nuclear weapon?
What possible reason would there be for an individual to want one?
The economics of the situation don't add up. If one Doctor Evil McBadnasty decided he wanted nuclear weapons, he's got to go through HUNDREDS of people in order to get one.
Each one of which would have to make a moral judgment as to whether or not they want Doctor Evil McBadnasty to have it.

No, sir, when it comes to larger weapons, the way to finance them is through theft by a system which has raised generations from birth to believe that it has the moral right to have and use them. A religion that has no moral problem with either the use of these weapons or tainting itself with state worship helps a lot, too.

In order to ban these, you need to demonstrate first that it would be a problem, and second that it would not be solvable via market forces. Otherwise your argument can just as easily be applied to single-shot 22 pistols.

[Pericles]

I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.
At $4 mil for a M1A2 Abrams, you have limited how many people are going to own one due to cost, unlike the $25 cost difference between an AR15 and an M16.

[CUnknown]

Don't you worry about the culture of fear that this might create? People driving around in tanks and flying by in Apache helicopters? Not that most people could afford these wonderful toys, but still. In the hypothetical world where people could, I don't think I'd be comfortable.

I would have no problem with an organized militia armed with these sorts of things, but clearly anything that destructive would have to be tightly controlled, with strict licensing laws, etc.

Sure, both guns and cannons/tanks/hellfire missiles can kill people, but some of these can kill way more people way faster than others.. I realize that this is the same sort of argument that proponents of the high-capacity clip ban are using. I guess I agree with them in theory, but would draw the line further down the road. I think refusing to draw the line anywhere gets you into pretty absurd territory... I mean, why restrict nuclear weapons, even?

[YumYum]

I mean, why restrict nuclear weapons, even?

Good question. It would be a great deterrent to keep someone from breaking into my house.

[CUnknown]

Riddle me this... do you have any idea how much cost there is in a single nuclear weapon?[...]

Well, let's leave practicality out of it for now, I'd like to talk about a hypothetical situation if that's ok.


In order to ban these, you need to demonstrate first that it would be a problem, and second that it would not be solvable via market forces. Otherwise your argument can just as easily be applied to single-shot 22 pistols.

I realize that it is the same argument that gun-control advocates are using. But still... I do think that the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

[CUnknown]

I don't know about nukes (they shouldn't even exist) but I have nothing against tanks so long as they don't slow down traffic and fit in one lane. I wouldn't worry about the cannon no more than a gun sitting in someone's car. Either one can kill somebody.

But why tanks and not nukes? Because one is more destructive than the other, right? I'm just trying to get people to say that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. The line you'd like lies somewhere between tanks and nukes, and that's fine with me. I just want to point out the necessity of drawing the line.

[Pericles]

Don't you worry about the culture of fear that this might create? People driving around in tanks and flying by in Apache helicopters? Not that most people could afford these wonderful toys, but still. In the hypothetical world where people could, I don't think I'd be comfortable.

I would have no problem with an organized militia armed with these sorts of things, but clearly anything that destructive would have to be tightly controlled, with strict licensing laws, etc.

Sure, both guns and cannons/tanks/hellfire missiles can kill people, but some of these can kill way more people way faster than others.. I realize that this is the same sort of argument that proponents of the high-capacity clip ban are using. I guess I agree with them in theory, but would draw the line further down the road. I think refusing to draw the line anywhere gets you into pretty absurd territory... I mean, why restrict nuclear weapons, even?

When I was on active duty, having those things buzz around was perfectly normal, if expensive. Pressing the Start button on the tank sends up $30 in diesel fuel right there.

I'll ask the same question I do to all of the only police and military should have folks:

On October 11, of year X, I was on active duty and could order my unit to deploy with tanks and every other lessor weapon in the Army inventory. On October 12, of year X, I was no longer on active duty. At what time in the 24 hour period did I become no longer qualified to have access to those weapons?

[HazyHusky420]

What we need is non-violence, not weapon regulations. There is a difference.

[CUnknown]

When I was on active duty, having those things buzz around was perfectly normal, if expensive. Pressing the Start button on the tank sends up $30 in diesel fuel right there.

I'll ask the same question I do to all of the only police and military should have folks:

On October 11, of year X, I was on active duty and could order my unit to deploy with tanks and every other lessor weapon in the Army inventory. On October 12, of year X, I was no longer on active duty. At what time in the 24 hour period did I become no longer qualified to have access to those weapons?

Well, okay ... are you saying that a person should have to have training in order to be allowed to use such weapons? It sounds then that you're talking about laws prohibiting access to these weapons except if certain conditions are met. The specifics might be different, but in essence this would be a type of weapon control law.

I'm not denying that citizens have the right to bear arms. I'm just saying that:

A) There needs to be weapon control laws of some type. This could be background checks, required training classes, etc. Whatever is appropriate for the weapon system in question.

B) The most lethal weapons need to be banned. This category might just include nuclear missiles, but at least this type of weapon needs to be in this category.

[pcosmar]

I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.

Yes. Private Citizens were meant to be the defense of this country.
There was never supposed to be an "army" but in time of need (common defense ) the militia was to be called upon.(The whole people armed)
There was never meant to be a standing army, in fact it was strongly warned against.

[Elwar]

Nuclear weapons.

I believe it should be perfectly legal for someone to have a nuclear weapon. They should also be responsible for paying insurance on that nuke that would cover the full cost were it to go off in a major metropolitan area.

As for the cost...some kid made a nuke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn) in his back yard out of old lightbulbs, smoke detectors and clock paint.

[Pericles]

Well, okay ... are you saying that a person should have to have training in order to be allowed to use such weapons? It sounds then that you're talking about laws prohibiting access to these weapons except if certain conditions are met. The specifics might be different, but in essence this would be a type of weapon control law.

I'm not denying that citizens have the right to bear arms. I'm just saying that:

A) There needs to be weapon control laws of some type. This could be background checks, required training classes, etc. Whatever is appropriate for the weapon system in question.

B) The most lethal weapons need to be banned. This category might just include nuclear missiles, but at least this type of weapon needs to be in this category.
Having had the training on pistols, rifles, machine guns, anti-tank missiles, chain guns (Bradley), tanks, and artillery, I'm saying that the notion that some form of required training makes the use of such weapons more responsible is erroneous. They are not hard to learn to operate, and if the Army tossed out the BS, a minimally functioning soldier can be trained in 30 days.

There are responsible people and irresponsible people, and when the irresponsible people are met with overwhelming force by the responsible people, the matter is settled, and only the totally irrational (who obey no laws anyway) form the risk to society. There is no law that stops the irrational.

[pcosmar]

I'm just trying to get people to say that a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

I just want to point out the necessity of drawing the line.

NO
No line. The full military might of this country should rightly be in the hands of the people. Personally.

[HazyHusky420]

This could be background checks, required training classes, etc.

How is that compatible with a free market?

[CUnknown]

Yes. Private Citizens were meant to be the defense of this country.
There was never supposed to be an "army" but in time of need (common defense ) the militia was to be called upon.(The whole people armed)
There was never meant to be a standing army, in fact it was strongly warned against.

That's why I put the State-militia part in there. I agree that we shouldn't have a standing army.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Were citizens allowed to own cannons in the 18th century?

Yes, and you can own one today with no paperwork other than signing a piece of paper saying the manufacturer is not liable if it blows up in your face.

http://www.hernironworks.com/cannonprice.html

http://www.hernironworks.com/cannons.html

http://www.hernironworks.com/cannons/pounder2.jpg

6-Pounder, Model 1841


The Ordnance Board of 1841 drew up the design for this gun, which is one of the most common of all the artillery pieces of the Civil War. This gun was made by both the North and the South; and was made in both cast iron and bronze, though bronze was more common.
Scale -- Full ; Bore -- 3 1/2 ; Length -- 65 1/2 ; Weight -- 850 ; Trunnion Diameter -- 3 5/8
Scale -- 2/3 ; Bore -- 2 1/4 ; Length -- 43 1/2 ; Weight -- 250 ; Trunnion Diameter -- 2 3/4


I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/large_image.php?ad=55823&cat=1

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/classpics/55823.jpg

Fantastic restoration project, 95%done. Reluctant sale due to lack of time. No sensible offer refused. Serious buyers please.

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/large_image.php?ad=55773&cat=1

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/classpics/55773.jpg

WW-II Survivor (05-1944). Built by Uralskiy Tankovyj Zawod May 1944. Used by former DDR troops. Ended active service as an monument. Hull and interior very complete. Turret and elevation system operational. All hatches there. Uncut armor. Only engine and some minor items missing. Excellent wheels, hubs, drums and tracks. Shipment in and outside Europe can be arranged including Export Permit, CoO. Price on request.

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/large_image.php?ad=55601&cat=1

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/classpics/55601.jpg

Immaculate condition with lot's of CES. P.O.A.
See our web site www.marcusglenn.com

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/large_image.php?ad=53577&cat=6

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/classpics/53577.jpg

Wanted Czech M53 Quad Mount
Your terms accepted, any condition, any location.

==

You were saying?

Hmm, nukes... yeah, I can see limits on them on earth, but thinking forward, a spacecraft might find having a few around useful.

Before the 1968 Gun Control act, people were able to buy things like anti-tank guns, mortars, bazooka's and high explosive shells via the mail. The only paperwork required was your signed check. Hardware stores sold TNT and dynamite over the counter.

-t

[HazyHusky420]

NO
No line. The full military might of this country should rightly be in the hands of the people. Personally.

EXACTLY. Besides, government employees scare me enough without guns.

[pcosmar]

That's why I put the State-militia part in there. I agree that we shouldn't have a standing army.

A militia is private people training with their own weapons.
In my states Constitution,

“Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”
This is the militia.

[CUnknown]

NO
No line. The full military might of this country should rightly be in the hands of the people. Personally.

It would still be in their hands, but in their hands as part of a citizen's militia. And the militia would be responsible for securing these arms so that people not authorized by the militia wouldn't be able to get their hands on them.

If we're talking weapons that can devastate cities, there is a serious public safety risk involved. And insurance as was suggested a bit earlier isn't going to cut it! "I blew up New York, whoops!" "Well that's okay as long as you can pay for it..." WTF? I don't think that's okay..

[pcosmar]

It would still be in their hands, but in their hands as part of a citizen's militia. And the militia would be responsible for securing these arms so that people not authorized by the militia wouldn't be able to get their hands on them.

If we're talking weapons that can devastate cities, there is a serious public safety risk involved. And insurance as was suggested a bit earlier isn't going to cut it! "I blew up New York, whoops!" "Well that's okay as long as you can pay for it..." WTF? I don't think that's okay..

Well if we had put the fuckin' Nazis that developed them in prison for war crimes instead of bringing them here and protecting them, this would not be an issue.

[CUnknown]

Having had the training on pistols, rifles, machine guns, anti-tank missiles, chain guns (Bradley), tanks, and artillery, I'm saying that the notion that some form of required training makes the use of such weapons more responsible is erroneous. They are not hard to learn to operate, and if the Army tossed out the BS, a minimally functioning soldier can be trained in 30 days.

But are you saying that the 30-day training is unnecessary? Sure, toss out the BS, but at the end you're still left with a necessary period of training, right? Do you want people playing with these weapons without the training, either in the military or elsewhere? Of course not, right?


There are responsible people and irresponsible people, and when the irresponsible people are met with overwhelming force by the responsible people, the matter is settled, and only the totally irrational (who obey no laws anyway) form the risk to society. There is no law that stops the irrational.

You can't stop the irrational, but you can try to deny them access to the weapon in the first place. That's not impossible to do, and it's responsible and important to do, imo.

[pcosmar]

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. 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. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

[Dr.3D]

Since when did banning something keep criminals from obtaining it? Only those who obey the laws are affected by banning anything.

[pcosmar]

Since when did banning something keep criminals from obtaining it? Only those who obey the laws are affected by banning anything.

And locks only keep honest people honest.

[Dr.3D]

And locks only keep honest people honest.

Exactly, and all a ban is, is a legislative lock.

[Pericles]

But are you saying that the 30-day training is unnecessary? Sure, toss out the BS, but at the end you're still left with a necessary period of training, right? Do you want people playing with these weapons without the training, either in the military or elsewhere? Of course not, right?



You can't stop the irrational, but you can try to deny them access to the weapon in the first place. That's not impossible to do, and it's responsible and important to do, imo.

Safe firearms handling is the same set of principles no matter the weapon.

Is training a good idea? Yes

Is placing my rights at the mercy of some other person who can arbitrarily (any test or other criteria is arbitrary on the part of the person given that authority) deny the right of a citizen specifically identified in the fundamental law of the land a good idea? No

[Anti Federalist]

Nukes and bioweapons and chemical weapons are aggressive, offensive weapons, that violate the core concept of the NAP.

In a perfect world they would not exist.

Short of that, if Bill Gates wants to own an aircraft carrier so be it.

[oyarde]

Since when did banning something keep criminals from obtaining it? Only those who obey the laws are affected by banning anything.

Correct .

[oyarde]

Yes, and you can own one today with no paperwork other than signing a piece of paper saying the manufacturer is not liable if it blows up in your face.

http://www.hernironworks.com/cannonprice.html

http://www.hernironworks.com/cannons.html

http://www.hernironworks.com/cannons/pounder2.jpg

6-Pounder, Model 1841


The Ordnance Board of 1841 drew up the design for this gun, which is one of the most common of all the artillery pieces of the Civil War. This gun was made by both the North and the South; and was made in both cast iron and bronze, though bronze was more common.
Scale -- Full ; Bore -- 3 1/2 ; Length -- 65 1/2 ; Weight -- 850 ; Trunnion Diameter -- 3 5/8
Scale -- 2/3 ; Bore -- 2 1/4 ; Length -- 43 1/2 ; Weight -- 250 ; Trunnion Diameter -- 2 3/4



http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/large_image.php?ad=55823&cat=1

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/classpics/55823.jpg

Fantastic restoration project, 95%done. Reluctant sale due to lack of time. No sensible offer refused. Serious buyers please.

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/large_image.php?ad=55773&cat=1

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/classpics/55773.jpg

WW-II Survivor (05-1944). Built by Uralskiy Tankovyj Zawod May 1944. Used by former DDR troops. Ended active service as an monument. Hull and interior very complete. Turret and elevation system operational. All hatches there. Uncut armor. Only engine and some minor items missing. Excellent wheels, hubs, drums and tracks. Shipment in and outside Europe can be arranged including Export Permit, CoO. Price on request.

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/large_image.php?ad=55601&cat=1

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/classpics/55601.jpg

Immaculate condition with lot's of CES. P.O.A.
See our web site www.marcusglenn.com

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/large_image.php?ad=53577&cat=6

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds/classpics/53577.jpg

Wanted Czech M53 Quad Mount
Your terms accepted, any condition, any location.

==

You were saying?

Hmm, nukes... yeah, I can see limits on them on earth, but thinking forward, a spacecraft might find having a few around useful.

Before the 1968 Gun Control act, people were able to buy things like anti-tank guns, mortars, bazooka's and high explosive shells via the mail. The only paperwork required was your signed check. Hardware stores sold TNT and dynamite over the counter.

-t

I kind of like the Czech Quad Mount ..

[LibForestPaul]

I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.

How many people have died by private citizens owning guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons?
How many people have died by states owning guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons?

[NYgs23]

I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.

The more appropriate question is should the government be allowed to own nukes.

[BlackTerrel]

eyers points out the absurd nature of asking what the founding fathers would have thought about the “right to bear arms” today. As Meyers puts it, the founding fathers would probably take days to wrap their minds around the idea of “cars” before they even considered how the Second Amendment applies today.

I'm only going on what's written here but really? That's "attacking the founding fathers?"

I support the second ammendment but one of the worst arguments in support of it is "the founding fathers would have supported it".

I can give you a 100 reasons why responsible gun ownership is a good thing. None of them include the word founding or fathers.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm only going on what's written here but really? That's "attacking the founding fathers?"


Really.

Which is why you need to watch the SNL clip. ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

I support the second ammendment but one of the worst arguments in support of it is "the founding fathers would have supported it".


Really? Doesn't it go without saying that the Founders did support it? Who uses that as an argument?

And using an argument that they would change their minds today is a good argument against?

[Bruno]

I'm only going on what's written here but really? That's "attacking the founding fathers?"


Well since you didn't spend the 1:20 to watch the skit before you commented on it, Seth also said, "what the founding fathers really would be wondering is who let all the slaves out? No really. You can grown all you want, but they'd be saying that."


I support the second ammendment but one of the worst arguments in support of it is "the founding fathers would have supported it".

I can give you a 100 reasons why responsible gun ownership is a good thing. None of them include the word founding or fathers.

And therefore by your same logic the SNL skit's position that the founding fathers would be against our current condition is also the worst argument.

[BlackTerrel]

Well since you didn't spend the 1:20 to watch the skit before you commented on it

Really? Shouldn't it be expected that if the OP quotes the video they are going to quote the relevant part? My speakers are not currently working BTW.


Seth also said, "what the founding fathers really would be wondering is who let all the slaves out? No really. You can grown all you want, but they'd be saying that."

Well..... they wouldn't?


And therefore by your same logic the SNL skit's position that the founding fathers would be against our current condition is also the worst argument.

I don't think it's SNL's job to make a good argument.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.

You want government to be the only one with firepower???

[Bruno]

Really? Shouldn't it be expected that if the OP quotes the video they are going to quote the relevant part? My speakers are not currently working BTW.



Well..... they wouldn't?



I don't think it's SNL's job to make a good argument.


But it is SNL's political attempt to paint the founding fathers as kooky racists who, if they were to somehow travel in a time machine to 2011, would be amazed at our technology and therefore, the entire U.S. Constitution is invalid. That is the political statement the skit was making. It was only trying to be mildly funny while making that point.

And sorry to hear about your speakers. Use some headphones.

[YumYum]

But it is SNL's political attempt to paint the founding fathers as kooky racists who, if they were to somehow travel in a time machine to 2011, would be amazed at our technology and therefore, the entire U.S. Constitution is invalid. That is the political statement the skit was making. It was only trying to be mildly funny while making that point.

And sorry to hear about your speakers. Use some headphones.

They would have cheesed on porno and Satan worship. In other words, had they known that in the future people would be openly worshiping the Devil and people would be openly watching people have sex, they would have amended freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

[YumYum]

But it is SNL's political attempt to paint the founding fathers as kooky racists who, if they were to somehow travel in a time machine to 2011, would be amazed at our technology and therefore, the entire U.S. Constitution is invalid. That is the political statement the skit was making. It was only trying to be mildly funny while making that point.

And sorry to hear about your speakers. Use some headphones.

They would have cheesed on porno and Satan worship. In other words, had they known that in the future people would be openly worshiping the Devil and people would be openly watching people have sex, they would have amended freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

[Sola_Fide]

They would have cheesed on porno and Satan worship. In other words, had they known that in the future people would be openly worshiping the Devil and people would be openly watching people have sex, they would have amended freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Everything that was around now was around then...satan, porn, abortion, prostitution, sin, etc, etc, etc.

People were "watching others having sex" and looking at pictures (drawings) of it in 1776 too. There is nothing new under the sun. Sin is sin and it has always been around. There is no such thing as a "new sin".

The wonder of it all is the Founders came the closest to limiting the sin of tyranny, which affects us all in a major way.

[YumYum]

Everything that was around now was around then...satan, porn, abortion, prostitution, sin, etc, etc, etc.

People were "watching others having sex" and looking at pictures (drawings) of it in 1776 too. There is nothing new under the sun. Sin is sin and it has always been around. There is no such thing as a "new sin".

The wonder of it all is the Founders came the closest to limiting the sin of tyranny, which affects us all in a major way.

It was around, but it was underground. You are too used to living in this time period where anything goes. You seem to forget that "Ozzie and Harriet" was in the 1950's and early 1960's; not the 1770's. I thought you claim this country was founded on Christian principles. If it was, then how can you say that porn and devil worship were everywhere; in the open for everybody to see? This stuff wasn't acceptable, and the founding fathers believed that it would have stayed where it was: underground.

[pcosmar]

It was around, but it was underground. You are too used to living in this time period where anything goes. You seem to forget that "Ozzie and Harriet" was in the 1950's and early 1960's; not the 1770's. I thought you claim this country was founded on Christian principles. If it was, then how can you say that porn and devil worship were everywhere; in the open for everybody to see? This stuff wasn't acceptable, and the founding fathers believed that it would have stayed where it was: underground.
Yes it was around, and you are correct that it was not acceptable.
And it was not acceptable 100 years after they were dead.
That it is becoming acceptable should be of concern.
Why is it "acceptable" today? (it is not to everybody)

[low preference guy]

Yes it was around, and you are correct that it was not acceptable.
And it was not acceptable 100 years after they were dead.
That it is becoming acceptable should be of concern.
Why is it "acceptable" today? (it is not to everybody)

the reason is the technology. if the internet were around in the 1700s, people would have had immediate access to porn and that would've made it more acceptable.

[pcosmar]

the reason is the technology. if the internet were around in the 1700s, people would have had immediate access to porn and that would've made it more acceptable.

Nope.
Availability does not equal acceptability.
There are many who do not find it acceptable, though they may (or may not) be a minority.

[fisharmor]

Nope.
Availability does not equal acceptability.
There are many who do not find it acceptable, though they may (or may not) be a minority.

Once again, Pete says what I'm thinking.

If you think porn is acceptable, get caught watching it at the office, and see how far that acceptance goes. Make sure to get caught reading cnn.com first to make it an true test.

If you think Satan worship is acceptable, announce your devotion to Lucifer at the next family Thanksgiving dinner. You don't even have to go for the hardcore devil worship - just stick with the LaVey Satanism, but make sure to point out that your family has broken Satanism's primary commandment by being so stupid as to not know the difference.

Go ahead, see how far acceptance goes.

The difference is, some of the founders knew this truth better than we do: that social pressures make certain things unacceptable, and that in most cases there is no need for a law in order to regulate society.

[Pericles]

The difference is, some of the founders knew this truth better than we do: that social pressures make certain things unacceptable, and that in most cases there is no need for a law in order to regulate society.

That ^ This common set of values keep a society or country together and make the thing work. As that social fabric is rent, there is the attempt to try to keep it together using law and forced compliance as a substitute.

[jmdrake]

I'm not trying to be argumentative ... I support the 2nd amendment ... but do you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks today? Nuclear bombs? It seems to me that you have to draw the line somewhere. I would support all small arms, including machine guns, but once you start going past that it gets a little extreme to me.. I think some things should be military-only, or State militia-only.

Straw man argument. The right to bear arms was linked to the militia. Basically it's what an infantry man can carry. An infantry man can't carry a tank. He can, however, carry and anti-tank rocket. Take from that what you will.

[jmdrake]

Taking the "logic" from this moron from SNL to it's obvious conclusion, the first amendment should no longer apply either. After all the founding fathers couldn't imagine the internet, or some stupid person mouthing off on a TV show that used to be funny. Freedom of the press meant "the press" as in "Gutenberg's press" and freedom of speech meant getting up on a soapbox in the town square and having your say. So if this idiot is willing to restrict his free speech rights to 18th century tech then I'm willing to restrict my gun rights to 18th century tech*.

*Let me qualify that. The loser from SNL might be stupid enough to agree to that, so no deal.

[Madly_Sane]

Good question. It would be a great deterrent to keep someone from breaking into my house.

Yea, as long as they knew you were willing to die to protect your material items as well.

[Madly_Sane]

Straw man argument. The right to bear arms was linked to the militia. Basically it's what an infantry man can carry. An infantry man can't carry a tank. He can, however, carry and anti-tank rocket. Take from that what you will.

Can driving a tank be considered carrying one?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Can driving a tank be considered carrying one?

Can an infantry man carry a 850 lb cannon? Canons were certainly covered under the second amendment and generally towed by horse. The internal combustion engine is the new horse. Animals have long been part of weapons systems and logistic supply chains. From medieval knights to cavalry. now we have air-cav. And let us not forget the ubiquitous camel bomb.

-t

[talkingpointes]

If anyone wanted to they could pull together enough resources to build whatever weapons they wanted. But we know it's just the crazy fuckers that use the weaponry to kill innocents. Somehow it's ok for governments to carpet bomb cities and it's not ok for some hobby nerds to build a canon ? Does the public not realize most information to build whatever you want is readily available. ZOMG WTF AM I GOING TO DO !!!!! Remember when the Weather Underground Made a point of bombing public buildings yesteryear. The media is clearly having a bad case of a brain on a deadline. Sure in countries without guns there might not be as many gun attacks, but how the fuck does someone in Japan run around killing 6+ people with a god damn knife? "They bring a knife to the fight we bring a gun" BO. You're god damn right bomma. Also in countries without guns there seems to be a ton of stabbings with needles.

[pcosmar]

Put it to rest.
The founders were clear in their intention and their words.


The power of the sword, say the minority..., 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 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.
(Every weapon)


Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
(Militarized Police)?


The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.


Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

An excellent collection of them here,
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.php

The intent and the words are quite clear. If you do not understand this,,you do not understand Liberty.

[Pericles]

If anyone wanted to they could pull together enough resources to build whatever weapons they wanted. But we know it's just the crazy fuckers that use the weaponry to kill innocents. Somehow it's ok for governments to carpet bomb cities and it's not ok for some hobby nerds to build a canon ? Does the public not realize most information to build whatever you want is readily available. ZOMG WTF AM I GOING TO DO !!!!! Remember when the Weather Underground Made a point of bombing public buildings yesteryear. The media is clearly having a bad case of a brain on a deadline. Sure in countries without guns there might not be as many gun attacks, but how the fuck does someone in Japan run around killing 6+ people with a god damn knife? "They bring a knife to the fight we bring a gun" BO. You're god damn right bomma. Also in countries without guns there seems to be a ton of stabbings with needles.

Japanese terrorists use nerve agent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

[low preference guy]

If you think Satan worship is acceptable, announce your devotion to Lucifer at the next family Thanksgiving dinner.

i do think it's acceptable! but i don't want bore my family.

[jmdrake]

Can an infantry man carry a 850 lb cannon? Canons were certainly covered under the second amendment and generally towed by horse. The internal combustion engine is the new horse. Animals have long been part of weapons systems and logistic supply chains. From medieval knights to cavalry. now we have air-cav. And let us not forget the ubiquitous camel bomb.

-t

I dunno. But an infantry man can carry a suitcase nuke (assuming they actually exist) so why bother with something so mundane as a cannon? LOL at the camel bomb. (I do recall insurgents in Iraq using a donkey bomb). Anyway, for everyone wanting a tank, how are you going to hide that sucker? I think hiding an antitank rocket is feasible especially if you disassemble it. And with enough ingenuity you can build your own tank.

See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsI598ji7Q4

But how many UAV's could you build at that price? Not the best use of resources IMO, but to each his own.

Oh, last note. I see some missed the sarcasm in my last post, so I'll be a little more explicit. If the second amendment covers having weapons that can kill tanks (and in my opinion it does) then it covers just about anything imaginable. The problem isn't with the weapon. It's how it's used.

[sailingaway]

Were citizens allowed to own cannons in the 18th century?

Yes, there were privately owned cannon used at the battle of Concord.

[oyarde]

Yes, there were privately owned cannon used at the battle of Concord.

I think so.

[Brian4Liberty]

Really? Shouldn't it be expected that if the OP quotes the video they are going to quote the relevant part?

Really? Next time all you get is the link! ;)