Home > Archive > Cobol > February 2008 > Re: Well at least this groups is more interesting than ...
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Well at least this groups is more interesting than ...
|
|
| HeyBub 2008-02-15, 6:55 pm |
| William M. Klein wrote:
> I guess discussions of religion, ethics, and Unix linking is better
> than the PL/I group that is currently discussing which characters
> could be punched and reproduced on early IBM keypunch machines.
Maybe what we need are posts that draw people in. For example, here's a post
I made on another group:
--- begin quote
Wednesday Night at Walmart
I'm prowling around the four or five very crowded holiday aisles at Walmart
to purchase a Valentine's day chocolate for the staff at my veterinarian's
office, when a fight breaks out.
Two mid-20's black women commence to scream at each other. I couldn't quite
make out the nature of their complaint since I don't speak emotion-laden
Nigerian-accented, Ebonics. I did catch the word "mutherXXXXer!" several
times inasmuch as it seemed to be used by each to describe every shortcoming
of the other.
A big black guy who seemed to be with (at least) one of the women
continually tried to shush her and position himself between the two
antagonists. When the yelling reached maximum decibels to no apparent
effect, they each began pulling stuff from the shelves and throwing it: They
were limited in the ammunition by the geometry of the displays to bags of
candy and stuffed animals; grinning puppies and red bunnies came down like
hail stones.
Most of the other customers stood around slack-jawed and completely at a
loss. Not me. My training kicked in. I took action.
Hoping to change the dynamics I shouted: "Hit her in the mouth!" and "Run
for your life!" and "She was right about you!" Strangely, these calls for
restraint only seemed to incite the combatants to further frenzies of
chocolate-chunking.
After about five minutes of mayhem, one of the participants exited the
store, leaving in her wake a ripple of rejoinders and gestures that caused
mothers to cover the eyes and ears of innocent children.
I still don't know which of the two women got a little heart-shaped token
inscribed with "Will you be mine?"
Anyway, I bought an (undamaged) three-pound Hershey's chocolate heart for
the animal clinic staff.
--- end quote
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-15, 6:56 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13rb6n4nmtu02a1@corp.supernews.com...
> William M. Klein wrote:
>
> Maybe what we need are posts that draw people in. For example, here's a
> post I made on another group:
>
> --- begin quote
>
> Wednesday Night at Walmart
>
> I'm prowling around the four or five very crowded holiday aisles at
> Walmart
> to purchase a Valentine's day chocolate for the staff at my veterinarian's
> office, when a fight breaks out.
>
> Two mid-20's black women commence to scream at each other. I couldn't
> quite
> make out the nature of their complaint since I don't speak emotion-laden
> Nigerian-accented, Ebonics. I did catch the word "mutherXXXXer!" several
> times inasmuch as it seemed to be used by each to describe every
> shortcoming
> of the other.
>
> A big black guy who seemed to be with (at least) one of the women
> continually tried to shush her and position himself between the two
> antagonists. When the yelling reached maximum decibels to no apparent
> effect, they each began pulling stuff from the shelves and throwing it:
> They
> were limited in the ammunition by the geometry of the displays to bags of
> candy and stuffed animals; grinning puppies and red bunnies came down like
> hail stones.
>
> Most of the other customers stood around slack-jawed and completely at a
> loss. Not me. My training kicked in. I took action.
>
> Hoping to change the dynamics I shouted: "Hit her in the mouth!" and "Run
> for your life!" and "She was right about you!" Strangely, these calls for
> restraint only seemed to incite the combatants to further frenzies of
> chocolate-chunking.
>
> After about five minutes of mayhem, one of the participants exited the
> store, leaving in her wake a ripple of rejoinders and gestures that caused
> mothers to cover the eyes and ears of innocent children.
>
> I still don't know which of the two women got a little heart-shaped token
> inscribed with "Will you be mine?"
>
> Anyway, I bought an (undamaged) three-pound Hershey's chocolate heart for
> the animal clinic staff.
>
> --- end quote
>
ROFL!
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-15, 9:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> ROFL!
>
> Pete.
When I posted this on "tx.guns" several responses were like yours. Some were
along the lines of "That's why I don't go to Walmart" and "Why didn't you
put a couple through the roof?" It's a pretty eclectic group, pretty much
like this one - only one female posts regularily and there's the occassional
drive-by troll. Then, of course, ordinary news reports get folks all
exercised.
For example, in response to the University of Northern Illinois shooting,
one of the ususal suspect anti-gun groups proposed legislation requiring gun
stores to notify universities anytime a student buys a gun. This generated
some non-nice things being said by our pro-gun folks.
There's cat stories, stupid pubic servant stories, stories about cats AND
stupid public servants, a running tally of Tasercides, stupid criminal
stories, stories that defy description [Like the one today where the
Canadian RCMP report finding a third human foot washing up on the beach in
18 months. Each was wearing a sneaker. An RCMP constable was quoted as "this
is somewhat unusual."], stories about police work, happenings at the range,
happenings at work involving guns, etc.
Guns stir debate. In a country of 300 million people, there are 200 million
guns. 40% of American households have a firearm.There are rational arguments
and emotional arguments on the subject - not about guns so much, but about
the rules and laws. Some debates reduce down to bumper sticker slogans: "I
carry a gun because I can't carry a cop" or "When seconds count, the police
are just minutes away" or "9-1-1 Dial-A-Prayer" or "Keep honking - I'm
reloading."
Here's one story that's a biggie. Washington D.C. has banned the private
possession of handguns since 1976. Finally a case challenging this situation
has percolated up to the Supreme Court which will hear arguments in early
March. The case has generated an unprecedented number of friend-of-the-court
briefs arguing one side or the other. Briefs have been filed by retired
generals, various anti-gun groups, linguists, gays, feminists, racial
equality advocates, Jews, sportsmen, private detectives, pediatricians,
surgeons, 31 (of 50) state attorneys general, the Solicitor General of the
United States, a majority of Congress, big city mayors, and even Dick
Cheney, the Vice President of the United States. Fascinating reading.
Anyway, as I said, the court will hear arguments in early March and a
decision is expected in early to mid-June (just in time for the presidential
election campaign). Oh, I forgot: The issue before the court is whether the
D.C. government CAN ban handguns under the U.S. Constitution (2nd Amendment:
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.").
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-16, 7:55 am |
|
"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13rcmvrtcpb0aa@corp.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
> When I posted this on "tx.guns" several responses were like yours. Some
> were along the lines of "That's why I don't go to Walmart" and "Why didn't
> you put a couple through the roof?" It's a pretty eclectic group, pretty
> much like this one - only one female posts regularily and there's the
> occassional drive-by troll. Then, of course, ordinary news reports get
> folks all exercised.
>
> For example, in response to the University of Northern Illinois shooting,
> one of the ususal suspect anti-gun groups proposed legislation requiring
> gun stores to notify universities anytime a student buys a gun. This
> generated some non-nice things being said by our pro-gun folks.
>
> There's cat stories, stupid pubic servant stories, stories about cats AND
> stupid public servants, a running tally of Tasercides, stupid criminal
> stories, stories that defy description [Like the one today where the
> Canadian RCMP report finding a third human foot washing up on the beach in
> 18 months. Each was wearing a sneaker. An RCMP constable was quoted as
> "this is somewhat unusual."], stories about police work, happenings at the
> range, happenings at work involving guns, etc.
>
> Guns stir debate. In a country of 300 million people, there are 200
> million guns. 40% of American households have a firearm.There are rational
> arguments and emotional arguments on the subject - not about guns so much,
> but about the rules and laws. Some debates reduce down to bumper sticker
> slogans: "I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop" or "When seconds
> count, the police are just minutes away" or "9-1-1 Dial-A-Prayer" or "Keep
> honking - I'm reloading."
>
> Here's one story that's a biggie. Washington D.C. has banned the private
> possession of handguns since 1976. Finally a case challenging this
> situation has percolated up to the Supreme Court which will hear arguments
> in early March. The case has generated an unprecedented number of
> friend-of-the-court briefs arguing one side or the other. Briefs have been
> filed by retired generals, various anti-gun groups, linguists, gays,
> feminists, racial equality advocates, Jews, sportsmen, private detectives,
> pediatricians, surgeons, 31 (of 50) state attorneys general, the Solicitor
> General of the United States, a majority of Congress, big city mayors, and
> even Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States. Fascinating
> reading.
>
> Anyway, as I said, the court will hear arguments in early March and a
> decision is expected in early to mid-June (just in time for the
> presidential election campaign). Oh, I forgot: The issue before the court
> is whether the D.C. government CAN ban handguns under the U.S.
> Constitution (2nd Amendment: "... the right of the people to keep and bear
> arms shall not be infringed.").
>
I can understand a tradition of gun ownership and a democratic right, dating
from a time when the Republic could be threatened at any moment.
I can't judge America for gun ownership.
I'm sure most Americans see the awful tragedies at Universities and schools
as terrible, but I can also understand that in a violent society, people may
feel more secure with a gun in the house.
I had a girlfriend in California who was the sweetest person you could
imagine. She was a schoolteacher, worked for charity and the community in
her spare time, and was of Hispanic descent. The first night I stayed at her
North Hollywood house, as we were preparing for bed, she placed a gun under
the pillow. I was kind of shocked and told her I'd be good...:-)
I asked her if she would seriously kill somebody who broke into the house,
and she assured me that she would do so in a heartbeat, had done a course in
the use and maintenance of her firearm and would have no compunction about
using it. "I'm a girl living alone in a sometimes rough neighbourhood.
Anyone comes in my house, they're dead..." were the actual words she used.
There is no doubt in my mind that she was serious about it.
Although there has been an increase in violent crimes here over the past 50
years, the cops still don't carry guns as a matter of course (they can call
an armed offenders squad which responds in a VERY short time, and I have
been told some squad cars in certain inner city areas now carry fiearms,
although this fact is not well publicised), and we have comparatively few
shootings by either cops or offenders. Rifles and shotguns must be licensed
and handguns are illegal. Military munitions like automatic weapons,
grenades, etc are simply not readily available. (Anyone found with anything
like that could face 10 years in jail; it is considered serious...)
This, of course, doesn't stop crazy or drugged people who are Hell-bent on
murder; they just use a knife or an axe, or a shotgun.
Without making comment on guns in the USA, I can only say that, from the
point of view of Law and Order, I'd rather be here...
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:43:56 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
>When I posted this on "tx.guns" several responses were like yours. Some were
>along the lines of "That's why I don't go to Walmart" and "Why didn't you
>put a couple through the roof?" It's a pretty eclectic group, pretty much
>like this one - only one female posts regularily and there's the occassional
>drive-by troll. Then, of course, ordinary news reports get folks all
>exercised.
>
>For example, in response to the University of Northern Illinois shooting,
>one of the ususal suspect anti-gun groups proposed legislation requiring gun
>stores to notify universities anytime a student buys a gun. This generated
>some non-nice things being said by our pro-gun folks.
>
>There's cat stories, stupid pubic servant stories, stories about cats AND
>stupid public servants, a running tally of Tasercides, stupid criminal
>stories, stories that defy description [Like the one today where the
>Canadian RCMP report finding a third human foot washing up on the beach in
>18 months. Each was wearing a sneaker. An RCMP constable was quoted as "this
>is somewhat unusual."], stories about police work, happenings at the range,
>happenings at work involving guns, etc.
>
>Guns stir debate. In a country of 300 million people, there are 200 million
>guns. 40% of American households have a firearm.There are rational arguments
>and emotional arguments on the subject - not about guns so much, but about
>the rules and laws. Some debates reduce down to bumper sticker slogans: "I
>carry a gun because I can't carry a cop" or "When seconds count, the police
>are just minutes away" or "9-1-1 Dial-A-Prayer" or "Keep honking - I'm
>reloading."
>
>Here's one story that's a biggie. Washington D.C. has banned the private
>possession of handguns since 1976. Finally a case challenging this situation
>has percolated up to the Supreme Court which will hear arguments in early
>March. The case has generated an unprecedented number of friend-of-the-court
>briefs arguing one side or the other. Briefs have been filed by retired
>generals, various anti-gun groups, linguists, gays, feminists, racial
>equality advocates, Jews, sportsmen, private detectives, pediatricians,
>surgeons, 31 (of 50) state attorneys general, the Solicitor General of the
>United States, a majority of Congress, big city mayors, and even Dick
>Cheney, the Vice President of the United States. Fascinating reading.
>
>Anyway, as I said, the court will hear arguments in early March and a
>decision is expected in early to mid-June (just in time for the presidential
>election campaign). Oh, I forgot: The issue before the court is whether the
>D.C. government CAN ban handguns under the U.S. Constitution (2nd Amendment:
>"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>infringed.").
>
I hope D.C. wins. Lets be clear what the Second Amendment says. The
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights
declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security
of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the
people to keep and bear arms."
One key controversy revolves around who is prohibited from
infringement and why the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the
Second Amendment prohibits individual States from infringing upon this
right. The most recent Supreme Court precedent, from 1875, is that the
Second Amendment is only a limit on the power of the federal
government, (see United States v. Cruikshank) but some people contend
that it extends to state jurisdictions.
Another major point of contention is whether it protects against
infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a
collective State militia right. The United States Courts of Appeals
are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and
"individual" interpretation. There is also a "modified collective"
view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms
based on their needs while serving in a militia. And I believe this
would extend to police (city, state, county) and other law enforcement
agencies.
Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause
and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all constitute
infringement, and why have federal regulations been allowed.) All
federal courts have found that reasonable firearm regulation is
allowable, while an outright firearm ban is currently the subject of
Supreme Court review in District of Columbia v. Heller which is the
case HeyBub mentioned.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
SAM: "What's shaking Norm?"
NORM: "All four ch s and a couple of chins."
--From U.S. TV Show, "Cheers"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-16, 6:55 pm |
| "SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I hope D.C. wins. Lets be clear what the Second Amendment says. The
> Second Amendment of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights
> declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security
> of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the
> people to keep and bear arms."
>
> One key controversy revolves around who is prohibited from
> infringement and why the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the
> Second Amendment prohibits individual States from infringing upon this
> right. The most recent Supreme Court precedent, from 1875, is that the
> Second Amendment is only a limit on the power of the federal
> government, (see United States v. Cruikshank) but some people contend
> that it extends to state jurisdictions.
>
> Another major point of contention is whether it protects against
> infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a
> collective State militia right. The United States Courts of Appeals
> are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and
> "individual" interpretation. There is also a "modified collective"
> view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms
> based on their needs while serving in a militia. And I believe this
> would extend to police (city, state, county) and other law enforcement
> agencies.
>
> Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause
> and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all constitute
> infringement, and why have federal regulations been allowed.) All
> federal courts have found that reasonable firearm regulation is
> allowable, while an outright firearm ban is currently the subject of
> Supreme Court review in District of Columbia v. Heller which is the
> case HeyBub mentioned.
Thanks, that was interesting and informative. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-16, 6:55 pm |
| SkippyPB wrote:
>
> I hope D.C. wins. Lets be clear what the Second Amendment says. The
> Second Amendment of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights
> declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security
> of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the
> people to keep and bear arms."
>
> One key controversy revolves around who is prohibited from
> infringement and why the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the
> Second Amendment prohibits individual States from infringing upon this
> right. The most recent Supreme Court precedent, from 1875, is that the
> Second Amendment is only a limit on the power of the federal
> government, (see United States v. Cruikshank) but some people contend
> that it extends to state jurisdictions.
Correct. The 2nd Amendment has never been "incorporated" to affect the
states (see Wikipedia on "incorporation doctrine").
>
> Another major point of contention is whether it protects against
> infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a
> collective State militia right. The United States Courts of Appeals
> are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and
> "individual" interpretation. There is also a "modified collective"
> view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms
> based on their needs while serving in a militia. And I believe this
> would extend to police (city, state, county) and other law enforcement
> agencies.
Correct on the disparity of decision amongst the circuits. It is the job of
the Supreme Court to sort this disparity out and impose a single rule on the
entire country.
The notion of law enforcement being part of any "militia" has never, to my
knowledge, been asserted by anyone.
>
> Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause
> and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all constitute
> infringement, and why have federal regulations been allowed.) All
> federal courts have found that reasonable firearm regulation is
> allowable, while an outright firearm ban is currently the subject of
> Supreme Court review in District of Columbia v. Heller which is the
> case HeyBub mentioned.
>
Most modern scholarship dismisses the "militia" notion. In every other use
of the the word "people" in the Bill of Rights, the unequivocal, unmodified,
meaning is the collection of individual citizens.
All "rights" have limitations. One of the issues is the degree of
limitation. There are tests applied to limitation of rights, the highest
being "strict scrutiny." "Strict scrutiny," to which all Constitutional
rights are subject has, at its core, three subordinate tests: 1) Does the
proposed restriction serve a compelling social necessity, 2) Can the
necessity be acomplished by less intrusive means, and 3) Do constitutional
alternatives exist once the action is prohibited. For example, a state may
require all hunting rifles to be colored dayglow orange as a safety measure.
This law would meet the strict scrutiny test because the banning of guns is
not contemplated.
If you want to study the issue in depth, a good time can be had by reading
the briefs filed so far. They can be found here:
http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/
[This link goes to the entire paper trail for this contest.]
For example, in the brief filed by criminiologists, we find the fact:
"These figures discredit the theory that predicts increased murder from an
increase in guns. For example, the gunstock per 1000 persons rose from 627
to 858 over the 30-year
period between 1974-2003, but the murder rate fell 41% [from 0.069 to 0.055
per 1000]." [But the murder rate went UP in Washington.]
In the brief filed by Jeanette Moll, an individual, she says "the owning of
a gun in one's own home should be as free from government interference as
the activities of two or more homosexuals."
She didn't exactly put it like that, but close.
General John D. Altenburg and other general officers opine that lack of gun
familiarity impedes national defense.
The Pink Pistols argue that the Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender community is
especially at risk and that swatting someone with a handbag just won't do.
Women Legislators & Academics argue that the time has passed for women
having to rely on barrel-chested men to protect them. Guns equalize
gender-based differences.
The Association of Physicians & Surgeons argue that the availability of
firearms "serve an essential role
against misuse of medicine by tyrannical governments for unethical goals."
Contrast this well-reasoned position with the American Academy of Pediatrics
(which is not on the available list, but we know their mantra to be "it's
for the children!").
The Paragon Foundation has the best argument: "Keeping and bearing arms is
good."
As to what the Supreme Court will do, there are several possibilites, not
all mutually exclusive:
1.Strike down the handgun ban for D.C. but allow the city to "effectively"
ban handguns by staying silent on oppressive "regulations" that would so
restrict ownership as to be a ban (registration, prohibitive fees, etc.).
2. Strike down the ban absolutely, with a warning that excessive regulations
will not stand.
3. Strike down the ban and incorporate the 2nd Amendment as binding upon all
the states.
4. Reverse the Court of Appeals and say Washington is not a state, hence the
2nd Amendment does not apply.
| |
| Robert 2008-02-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:10:26 -0500, SkippyPB <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>One key controversy revolves around who is prohibited from
>infringement and why the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the
>Second Amendment prohibits individual States from infringing upon this
>right. The most recent Supreme Court precedent, from 1875, is that the
>Second Amendment is only a limit on the power of the federal
>government, (see United States v. Cruikshank) but some people contend
>that it extends to state jurisdictions.
It doesn't matter what "some people contend," the Second Amendment does not apply to
states until the Supreme Court 'incorporates' it into the Fourteenth Amendment. Most of
Amendments 1 through 8 were individually incorporated during the '50s and '60s. The Second
Amendment is the major exception.
The most recent Supreme Court case was United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Its
ruling said the Second Amendment doesn't protect sawed-off shotguns because they are not
militia weapons. Actually they are, they were used in Vietnam.
>Another major point of contention is whether it protects against
>infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a
>collective State militia right. The United States Courts of Appeals
>are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and
>"individual" interpretation. There is also a "modified collective"
>view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms
>based on their needs while serving in a militia. And I believe this
>would extend to police (city, state, county) and other law enforcement
>agencies.
Who are militia members? Gun nuts claim all males aged 18 through 45 are, based on an
obscure law 10 U.S.C. 331-333. In reality, the concept of 'unorganized militia' is
obsolete. After the Revolution, the unorganized militia was never called to service nor
used in any conflict. And it never will be in the future.
State militias were federalized as the National Guard by the National Defense Acts of 1916
and 1933. What we have left are State Defense Forces aka State Guards, which are active in
about 25 states. Members are unpaid volunteers who provide their own uniforms and guns.
They have been used a few times for civil emergencies, notably Hurricane Katrina.
Oddly, although states are expected to have militias, they are legally forbidden to have
troops. In other words, they're not allowed to pay soldiers, because that would constitute
a Standing Army.
Congress should repeal 10 U.S.C. 331-333, rewriting it to apply to organized State Defense
Forces.
>Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause
>and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all constitute
>infringement, and why have federal regulations been allowed.)
Because only militia weapons are covered by the Second Amendment. OK, a 155 howitzer is
clearly a militia weapon, why can't I own one? I can, provided I get permission from the
county sheriff, register it with ATF and pay a $200 tax. If the projectile flies over
three other counties, there is no requirement to get premission from those sheriffs.
| |
| tlmfru 2008-02-16, 9:57 pm |
|
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:u2Jtj.74800$Mu4.51337@bignews7.bellsouth.net...[color=darkred]
> "SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
It has often occurred to me that the whole question can be side-stepped by
restricting the USE of arms. Carry them if you must or want to but if you
ever use them for anything but self-defense (or in carrying out your job)
you get the book thrown at you.
PL
| |
|
| In article <sv5er3dkj5dhqgeqm8g3jf5a7vhh51iipo@4ax.com>,
SkippyPB <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I hope D.C. wins. Lets be clear what the Second Amendment says. The
>Second Amendment of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights
>declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security
>of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the
>people to keep and bear arms."
I was taught that when it comes to matters of scholarship - and
Constitutional Law may be thought of as a kind of scholarship - that it is
best to have a copy of the original text close by. From
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...tml#amendmentii>
--begin quoted text:
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.
--end quoted text
[snip]
>Another major point of contention is whether it protects against
>infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a
>collective State militia right. The United States Courts of Appeals
>are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and
>"individual" interpretation. There is also a "modified collective"
>view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms
>based on their needs while serving in a militia.
I find it... odd that this question of collective versus individual
interpretation is raised regarding Amendment II but has never, to the best
of my knowledge, been raised regarding rather similar language in
Amendment I. From
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...html#amendmenti>
--begin quoted text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
--end quoted text
The 'rather similar language' I refer to is '... the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of
grievances.'
In short... the last clause of Amendment I to the Constitution of the
United States of America refers to 'the people'. The next-to-last clause
of Amendment II refers to 'the people'. How the intervening twenty-nine
words, three commas and one period would render the earlier reference as
one towards individuals and the latter reference as one towards a
collective would seem to require some legal interpretation worth
examining.
DD
| |
| Robert 2008-02-16, 9:57 pm |
| On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:40:51 -0800 (PST), Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Thanks for clarifying the matter. Now, does the National Guard
>constitute a legitimate militia? If so, can any other organisation
>claim to be a militia as a means to carrying arms? I'm thinking of the
>nutters who train in a quasi-military style in the woods.
Nope, the definition of militia members excludes mental cases.
---------------------------------------
I'm looking for a phrase for mass murder. It used to be called Going Postal. After
Columbine, I coined the alliterative Going Goth. Now that socially inept teens have been
replaced by socially inept postgrad college students, what's the phrase?
We had one today in Chicago, when a former grad student burst into a lecture hall at
Northern Illinois University (NIU) in DeKalb, murdered five students and then himself with
a shotgun. He had a FOID, a firearms owners identification card, and all his guns were
purchased legally. No amount of profiling would have prevented the murders. The system
simply doesn't work.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2008-02-17, 7:55 am |
| "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> It has often occurred to me that the whole question can be side-stepped by
> restricting the USE of arms. Carry them if you must or want to but if you
> ever use them for anything but self-defense (or in carrying out your job)
> you get the book thrown at you.
I agree. There appears to be a logical fault in most gun control advocates
brains making them unable to understand that, if a person will willingly
violate a law against murder, for which the penalty is a long prision
sentence or death, they can hardly be expected to obey a gun control law
for which the penalty is a fine or a short stay in jail.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-17, 6:57 pm |
| On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:40:51 -0800 (PST), Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 16 Feb, 17:10, SkippyPB <swieg...@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>Thanks for clarifying the matter. Now, does the National Guard
>constitute a legitimate militia? If so, can any other organisation
>claim to be a militia as a means to carrying arms? I'm thinking of the
>nutters who train in a quasi-military style in the woods.
Yes, the National Guard constitutes a legitimate militia. I believe
in order to be a militia as you describe, it must be authorized,
sanctioned, whatever term you want to use by a governing authority,
i.e., State, Federal or Municipal.
The whakoes in the woods do not fall into that category.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
SAM: "What's shaking Norm?"
NORM: "All four chs and a couple of chins."
--From U.S. TV Show, "Cheers"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-17, 6:57 pm |
| On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:06:48 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:10:26 -0500, SkippyPB <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>It doesn't matter what "some people contend," the Second Amendment does not apply to
>states until the Supreme Court 'incorporates' it into the Fourteenth Amendment. Most of
>Amendments 1 through 8 were individually incorporated during the '50s and '60s. The Second
>Amendment is the major exception.
>
>The most recent Supreme Court case was United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Its
>ruling said the Second Amendment doesn't protect sawed-off shotguns because they are not
>militia weapons. Actually they are, they were used in Vietnam.
>
The were used but they were not issued by the US Military. Same with
Thompson .45 Machine Guns. That doesn't make them legal or "militia"
weapons.
>
>Who are militia members? Gun nuts claim all males aged 18 through 45 are, based on an
>obscure law 10 U.S.C. 331-333. In reality, the concept of 'unorganized militia' is
>obsolete. After the Revolution, the unorganized militia was never called to service nor
>used in any conflict. And it never will be in the future.
>
>State militias were federalized as the National Guard by the National Defense Acts of 1916
>and 1933. What we have left are State Defense Forces aka State Guards, which are active in
>about 25 states. Members are unpaid volunteers who provide their own uniforms and guns.
>They have been used a few times for civil emergencies, notably Hurricane Katrina.
>
>Oddly, although states are expected to have militias, they are legally forbidden to have
>troops. In other words, they're not allowed to pay soldiers, because that would constitute
>a Standing Army.
>
>Congress should repeal 10 U.S.C. 331-333, rewriting it to apply to organized State Defense
>Forces.
>
>
>Because only militia weapons are covered by the Second Amendment. OK, a 155 howitzer is
>clearly a militia weapon, why can't I own one? I can, provided I get permission from the
>county sheriff, register it with ATF and pay a $200 tax. If the projectile flies over
>three other counties, there is no requirement to get premission from those sheriffs.
>
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
SAM: "What's shaking Norm?"
NORM: "All four chs and a couple of chins."
--From U.S. TV Show, "Cheers"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Clark F Morris 2008-02-17, 6:57 pm |
| On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:10:26 -0500, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:43:56 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I hope D.C. wins. Lets be clear what the Second Amendment says. The
>Second Amendment of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights
>declares a well-regulated militia as "being necessary to the security
>of a free State" and prohibits infringement of "the right of the
>people to keep and bear arms."
Read the posting by Chuck Stevens on this where he pointed out that it
was legal at the time to own a naval vessel capable of taking out
other warships and that Congress had the right prior to the second
amendment to authorize the use of this vessel through letters of
marque and reprisal. Since the Supreme Court has ruled in other cases
(primarily business and civil rights) that the 14th amendment extends
the prohibitions of the bill of rights to state actions, it is weak to
say that it wouldn't apply here.
>
>One key controversy revolves around who is prohibited from
>infringement and why the Supreme Court has never ruled whether the
>Second Amendment prohibits individual States from infringing upon this
>right. The most recent Supreme Court precedent, from 1875, is that the
>Second Amendment is only a limit on the power of the federal
>government, (see United States v. Cruikshank) but some people contend
>that it extends to state jurisdictions.
>
>Another major point of contention is whether it protects against
>infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a
>collective State militia right. The United States Courts of Appeals
>are in disagreement over the "collective" interpretation and
>"individual" interpretation. There is also a "modified collective"
>view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms
>based on their needs while serving in a militia. And I believe this
>would extend to police (city, state, county) and other law enforcement
>agencies.
>
>Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause
>and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all constitute
>infringement, and why have federal regulations been allowed.) All
>federal courts have found that reasonable firearm regulation is
>allowable, while an outright firearm ban is currently the subject of
>Supreme Court review in District of Columbia v. Heller which is the
>case HeyBub mentioned.
>
>Regards,
> ////
> (o o)
>-oOO--(_)--OOo-
>
>SAM: "What's shaking Norm?"
>NORM: "All four chs and a couple of chins."
>--From U.S. TV Show, "Cheers"
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Remove nospam to email me.
>
>Steve
Clark Morris
| |
| Robert 2008-02-17, 6:57 pm |
| On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:17:35 -0500, SkippyPB <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:06:48 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>The were used but they were not issued by the US Military. Same with
>Thompson .45 Machine Guns. That doesn't make them legal or "militia"
>weapons.
The Thompson was issued by the US Military from 1938 to 1944, when it was replaced by the
M3 to save money. Thompsons were used a lot in WWII and Korea. The Thompson fires .45 ACP
(pistol ammunition) at 500-1,000 rounds per minute from a 30 round magazine. The M3 fires
..45 ACP at 400 rounds per minute from a 30 round magazine. The current Special Ops
submachine gun is the H&K MP5, which fires 9mm pistol ammunition at 900 rounds per minute
from a 30 round magazine. See picture linked below.
Big round magazines seen in gangster movies were never popular. It's better to duct tape
two 30 round magazines together, the second upside-down.
--- quote ---
M-1014 Joint Service Combat Shotgun
The Joint Service Combat Shotgun is a a compact, lightweight, semi-automatic, 12 gauge
weapon configured with a standard magazine with a minimum capacity of six 2 3/4 inch
cartridges. The Combat Shotgun is capable of firing 12 gauge 3.0 inch magnum ammunition
and is interoperable with standard 2 3/4 inch ammunition without adjustment to the
operating system.
The Marine Corps was the lead agency in the test and evaluation of this shotgun. It is
designed to replace the many different shotguns used in all of the military service. The
shotgun was officially accepted for production in 2001. The weapon is primarily used by
security forces and by special operations forces.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army...aainfantry2.htm
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-18, 6:55 pm |
| Robert wrote:
>
> We had one today in Chicago, when a former grad student burst into a
> lecture hall at Northern Illinois University (NIU) in DeKalb,
> murdered five students and then himself with a shotgun. He had a
> FOID, a firearms owners identification card, and all his guns were
> purchased legally. No amount of profiling would have prevented the
> murders. The system simply doesn't work.
I agree. Any "system" that puts obstacles in the path of a gun owner (FOID,
5-day waiting period, or outright prohibition of handguns as in Chicago) is
busted. Subsystems, as in the univeristy's prohibition of weapons on campus,
is double-busted.
Contrast what happened at Virginia Tech and NIU with an attempt in December
at the Colorado church. There, a goblin killed two people in the church
parking lot, then, carrying over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, prepared to
enter the building. He was met, not by the ladies auxillary passign out
cookies, but by a female member of the church with a concealed handgun
license (CHL) and her own 9mm pistol.
Lest you think "How much damage could one person do in a church?" consider
that the New Life Church has over 10,000 members and a goodly portion were
on hand that day (in excess of 3,000).
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-02-18, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:06:27 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>Nope, the definition of militia members excludes mental cases.
But does the definition of "people" exclude mental cases?
Apparently.
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-18, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:38:53 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Robert wrote:
>
>I agree. Any "system" that puts obstacles in the path of a gun owner (FOID,
>5-day waiting period, or outright prohibition of handguns as in Chicago) is
>busted. Subsystems, as in the univeristy's prohibition of weapons on campus,
>is double-busted.
>
>Contrast what happened at Virginia Tech and NIU with an attempt in December
>at the Colorado church. There, a goblin killed two people in the church
>parking lot, then, carrying over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, prepared to
>enter the building. He was met, not by the ladies auxillary passign out
>cookies, but by a female member of the church with a concealed handgun
>license (CHL) and her own 9mm pistol.
>
Jeanne Assam, a church security guard with law enforcement experience,
had a right to have a gun. She worked as a police officer in downtown
Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. Much
different that the three whackos you mentioned who could obtain very
dangerous weapons willy nilly.
>Lest you think "How much damage could one person do in a church?" consider
>that the New Life Church has over 10,000 members and a goodly portion were
>on hand that day (in excess of 3,000).
>
>
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Have I learned from my mistakes? Yes, I believe
I could repeat them all exactly the same."
-- Kurt Vonnegut
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-18, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:04:21 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:17:35 -0500, SkippyPB <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>The Thompson was issued by the US Military from 1938 to 1944, when it was replaced by the
>M3 to save money. Thompsons were used a lot in WWII and Korea. The Thompson fires .45 ACP
>(pistol ammunition) at 500-1,000 rounds per minute from a 30 round magazine. The M3 fires
>.45 ACP at 400 rounds per minute from a 30 round magazine. The current Special Ops
>submachine gun is the H&K MP5, which fires 9mm pistol ammunition at 900 rounds per minute
>from a 30 round magazine. See picture linked below.
>
>Big round magazines seen in gangster movies were never popular. It's better to duct tape
>two 30 round magazines together, the second upside-down.
>
You were talking about Vietnam, not WW2 or Korea. The US Army (at
least..don't know about the Marines) quit issuing the Thompson because
the M14 and M16's that came along had a faster fire rate and could
easily handle 30 round clips. They were also much more accurate at
long distances on single fire. The Thompson was only accurate in very
close quarters and tended to suffer from barrel melt with extensive
use (as did the early models of the M-16). However, some grunts in
Vietnam preferred them over the M-16 because they were lighter,
smaller and less likely to jam up in the rain and/or mud. Guys that
had them, and I knew several, got them through the black market which
was rampant in Vietnam. Same way many guys got the sawed off
shotguns. Most of the folks that got those weapons were in recon
platoons and were more subject to close in fighting than most other
grunt platoons.
Also, many Army guys preferred the 38 caliber pistol issued by the Air
Force over the 45 issued by the Army and would trade to get one. Not
sure why. May have just been the "cowboy" factor. I loved my 45!
>--- quote ---
>M-1014 Joint Service Combat Shotgun
>
>The Joint Service Combat Shotgun is a a compact, lightweight, semi-automatic, 12 gauge
>weapon configured with a standard magazine with a minimum capacity of six 2 3/4 inch
>cartridges. The Combat Shotgun is capable of firing 12 gauge 3.0 inch magnum ammunition
>and is interoperable with standard 2 3/4 inch ammunition without adjustment to the
>operating system.
>
>The Marine Corps was the lead agency in the test and evaluation of this shotgun. It is
>designed to replace the many different shotguns used in all of the military service. The
>shotgun was officially accepted for production in 2001. The weapon is primarily used by
>security forces and by special operations forces.
>http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army...aainfantry2.htm
>
>
Your original post was about a "sawed off" shotgun which is illegal
just about anywhere including the armed forces but they were available
on the black market in Vietnam. The M1014 Combat Shotgun, which is
issued to Army and Marine soldiers for use in Iraq is not the same as
a sawed off shotgun. In Vietnam, Army Rangers, Marine Recon and Navy
SEAL units found lots of good uses for 12 gauge pumps as well as a
devastating 27 pellet buckshot load for the acclaimed M79 Thumper
grenade launcher. Neither the M79 nor the pump gauge shotguns used by
those units could be classified as a "sawed off" shotgun.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Have I learned from my mistakes? Yes, I believe
I could repeat them all exactly the same."
-- Kurt Vonnegut
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-18, 6:55 pm |
| SkippyPB wrote:
>
> Jeanne Assam, a church security guard with law enforcement experience,
> had a right to have a gun. She worked as a police officer in downtown
> Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. Much
> different that the three whackos you mentioned who could obtain very
> dangerous weapons willy nilly.
>
>
She was NOT a professional security guard - she was a civilian member of the
congregation seconded to hall-monitor duty. Security Guards in Colorado have
to be licensed by the state. The church guardians are members of the church
who are screened and not "mercenaries that we hire to walk around our campus
to provide security," [senior pastor] Boyd said.
I wouldn't hold her former police training against her inasmuch as the
result turned out okay, possibly because her police training wore off.
Police are 11 times more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than a
civilian.
As for the NIU mess, recall that in the class was a 32-year-old Army
reservist who had recently completed a tour in Bosnia. Certainly she (yes,
it was a she) could handle a weapon.
You're right about whackos being able to obtain guns willy-nilly. Even the
NIU whacko was able to obtain a gun under, arguably, some of the more
stringent laws in the nation (prior registration of individuals wanting to
purchase a gun, 10-day waiting period, etc.).
| |
| HeyBub 2008-02-18, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:06:27 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
> But does the definition of "people" exclude mental cases?
>
> Apparently.
Sure. Also felons, children, (some) aliens, fugitives, domestic violence
perps, and others. Depending on the breaks. It varies. In Texas and
Tennessee (to name two) there is no prohibition on a blind person obtaining
a concealed handgun license.
But some say the "milita" business in the 2nd doesn't matter.
Just like: "A well-read populace being necessary for an informed elctorate,
the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." *A*
worthwhile goal is not the only justification for the absolute declaration.
| |
| Robert 2008-02-18, 9:56 pm |
| On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:22:06 -0500, SkippyPB <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:04:21 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
>You were talking about Vietnam, not WW2 or Korea. The US Army (at
>least..don't know about the Marines) quit issuing the Thompson because
>the M14 and M16's that came along had a faster fire rate and could
>easily handle 30 round clips. They were also much more accurate at
>long distances on single fire. The Thompson was only accurate in very
>close quarters and tended to suffer from barrel melt with extensive
>use (as did the early models of the M-16). However, some grunts in
>Vietnam preferred them over the M-16 because they were lighter,
>smaller and less likely to jam up in the rain and/or mud.
Yes, the US military lost interest in high-firepower low-accuracy weapons for regular
infantry use. Rifles and carbines have much longer range of accurate fire. But submachine
guns were still preferred for Special Ops (recon), defensive use (tanks, engineers),
hostage rescue and shotgun for door breeching.
Recon scouts need a weapon for defense, not offense, Their mission is getting information,
not killing people. They only use a weapon when detected and confronted by the enemy. In
that situation they throw out a burst of firepower to frighten the enemy into taking cover
long enough to make their escape.
In urban fighting, such as hostage rescue, you don't want the penetrating power of a rifle
round lest you accidentally shoot someone on the other side of a wall.
>Guys that
>had them, and I knew several, got them through the black market which
>was rampant in Vietnam. Same way many guys got the sawed off
>shotguns. Most of the folks that got those weapons were in recon
>platoons and were more subject to close in fighting than most other
>grunt platoons.
Marine Corps Force Recon were issued M3 submachine guns during the Vietnam era. Now
they're issued the similar MP5.
>Also, many Army guys preferred the 38 caliber pistol issued by the Air
>Force over the 45 issued by the Army and would trade to get one. Not
>sure why. May have just been the "cowboy" factor. I loved my 45!
You must have been an officer. Grunts didn't carry handguns for the same reason: no good
beyond 50 yards.
Seems to me the cowboy factor would favor a Dirty Harry .44 Magnum or a Desert Eagle. My
personal favorite was a Wilkinson Linda with a shrouded (air  ed look) barrel. A
silenced MAC-10 is pretty scary too.
| |
| Robert 2008-02-18, 9:56 pm |
| On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:38:53 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>Robert wrote:
>
>I agree. Any "system" that puts obstacles in the path of a gun owner (FOID,
>5-day waiting period, or outright prohibition of handguns as in Chicago) is
>busted. Subsystems, as in the univeristy's prohibition of weapons on campus,
>is double-busted.
By that logic, we should legalize murder. The disincentive of life sentence or execution
has been tried and failed to work for thousands of years. Let's cancel laws and regroup
when we have an idea that will work.
I have one. Define them as terrorists, hand them to the CIA and show their torture on TV.
>Contrast what happened at Virginia Tech and NIU with an attempt in December
>at the Colorado church. There, a goblin killed two people in the church
>parking lot, then, carrying over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, prepared to
>enter the building. He was met, not by the ladies auxillary passign out
>cookies, but by a female member of the church with a concealed handgun
>license (CHL) and her own 9mm pistol.
Ya-hoo, cowgirl time. I hope she was suitably attired in boots and hat.
>Lest you think "How much damage could one person do in a church?" consider
>that the New Life Church has over 10,000 members and a goodly portion were
>on hand that day (in excess of 3,000).
A visual enactment of the adage, everyone wanna go ta heaven but no one wanna die. :)
If it was a mosque, he would strap a bomb on a female retard, send her in and set it off
by remote control from a cell phone. You would shrug when you read about it in the paper.
Phone Grabbers would demand licensing call phones. Homeland Security would require all
buildings open to the public be enclosed in a Faraday Cage by some date. Congress would
authorize emergency work visas for qualified security guards.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-02-18, 9:56 pm |
|
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:vqekr35s46ce5uomguk8k0uh0covq4if10@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:38:53 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> By that logic, we should legalize murder. The disincentive of life
> sentence or execution
> has been tried and failed to work for thousands of years. Let's cancel
> laws and regroup
> when we have an idea that will work.
>
> I have one. Define them as terrorists, hand them to the CIA and show their
> torture on TV.
>
>
> Ya-hoo, cowgirl time. I hope she was suitably attired in boots and hat.
Given she was only wearing boots and a hat, I think we have a right to know
where she concealed the handgun... :-)
This sounds like a church I might attend...
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| SkippyPB 2008-02-21, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:31:06 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:22:06 -0500, SkippyPB <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>Yes, the US military lost interest in high-firepower low-accuracy weapons for regular
>infantry use. Rifles and carbines have much longer range of accurate fire. But submachine
>guns were still preferred for Special Ops (recon), defensive use (tanks, engineers),
>hostage rescue and shotgun for door breeching.
>
>Recon scouts need a weapon for defense, not offense, Their mission is getting information,
>not killing people. They only use a weapon when detected and confronted by the enemy. In
>that situation they throw out a burst of firepower to frighten the enemy into taking cover
>long enough to make their escape.
>
>In urban fighting, such as hostage rescue, you don't want the penetrating power of a rifle
>round lest you accidentally shoot someone on the other side of a wall.
>
>
>Marine Corps Force Recon were issued M3 submachine guns during the Vietnam era. Now
>they're issued the similar MP5.
>
You're grasping at straws here. The M3 was NOTHING like a Thompson.
Didn't look like it, didn't shoot like, didn't act like it. The only
thing they had in common was that they both shot .45 caliber ammo. In
fact, the M3 in 1942 began replacing the Thompson's that used to be
issued by the Army and Marines. The M3 could easily convert to a 9 x
19 Parabellum pistol cartridge. The M3 was nicknamed, "The Grease
Gun, because that's what it looked like.
The M5 is a 9mm weapon, not a .45 caliber weapon. It is issued
primarily to Navy personnel but is favored by the groups you noted.
>
>You must have been an officer. Grunts didn't carry handguns for the same reason: no good
>beyond 50 yards.
>
And you must have never been a grunt in Vietnam. I was and not an
officer. Handguns were issued to artillary and some mortar units. I
was in a 4.2 mortar platoon and we could get handguns if we wanted
them.
>Seems to me the cowboy factor would favor a Dirty Harry .44 Magnum or a Desert Eagle. My
>personal favorite was a Wilkinson Linda with a shrouded (air ed look) barrel. A
>silenced MAC-10 is pretty scary too.
>
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Have I learned from my mistakes? Yes, I believe
I could repeat them all exactly the same."
-- Kurt Vonnegut
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Robert 2008-02-21, 9:55 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:20:32 -0500, SkippyPB <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:31:06 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
>You're grasping at straws here. The M3 was NOTHING like a Thompson.
>Didn't look like it, didn't shoot like, didn't act like it. The only
>thing they had in common was that they both shot .45 caliber ammo.
Same ammo and magazine capacity, similar weight, length and rate of fire (after the
Thompson was slowed down for the Navy). Both blowback operated. Both had non-adjustable
sights. Same tendency to 'walk upward'. Both were used by recon and other special
operations units.
"By the time of the Korean War, the Thompson had been withdrawn from service as a
standard-issue submachine gun with U.S. forces. It was replaced by the M3/M3A1 submachine
gun, and the M1/M2 carbine."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun
Most people think of the Thompson as an offensive weapon, the M3 as defensive. Wrong, both
are defensive.
>In fact, the M3 in 1942 began replacing the Thompson's that used to be
>issued by the Army and Marines. The M3 could easily convert to a 9 x
>19 Parabellum pistol cartridge.
Only if you had access to the barrel, bolt, magazines and ammo. We didn't.
"Close to 600,000 weapons were produced by the end of World War II, including approx.
25,000 models chambered for the 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge (which was achieved through
swapping out the barrel, bolt and applying an adapter for use with the British 9 mm Sten
submachine gun magazines), which were delivered to the OSS in 1944."
>The MP5 is a 9mm weapon, not a .45 caliber weapon. It is issued
>primarily to Navy personnel but is favored by the groups you noted.
Same firepower.
..45 230gr @ 850 ft/sec = 500 joules
9mm 123gr @ 1100 ft/sec = 494 joules
>
>And you must have never been a grunt in Vietnam.
You're right. I was in Marine recon elsewhere in SE Asia and in Cuba.
> I was and not an
>officer. Handguns were issued to artillary and some mortar units. I
>was in a 4.2 mortar platoon and we could get handguns if we wanted
>them.
Marine artillery had infantry rifles, no handguns.
|
|
|
|
|