He is right. Since it is hard for the average American to purchase and maintain an Apache helicopter, I would like to see true individual State run and maintained volunteer Militias now that the Feds control the National Guard. Or return the National Guard to the States. Allow anyone over 18 with a clean mental and legal record to join and be trained. It would be interesting seeing SAMs available at local gun shows.
I don't recall Hice saying that we NEED bazookas, only that if somebody can afford one they ought to be able to do so. I would have liked to be able to post that question there. I would have also liked to ask all the folks considering us loony, why, if we're so loony, they take such delight in trying to set us off. After all, we may be loony but WE'RE the ones who are likely to have guns. Mama Liberty's sage quote would seem to apply here. And Kurt Hoffmann's "despised by the despicable" is surely in force.
{sigh} There really ARE two Americas and I fear that soon there may not be even one.
What many of the commenters, the ones that would have us all armed with smooth bore muskets, at the article fail to realize is that the precedent has already been set. The private ownership of artillery in the 'states'. can be traced back to colonial times.
Being specific, many privately owned merchant ships were armed with cannon. A good sized merchantman with a decent broadside would sport more artillery than most small armies.
Definitely for the wealthy though.
hbbill Somewhere behind enemy lines, Peoples Republik of Kommiefornia
That would be consistent with the determining USSC decision prior to Heller that being Miller (the only firearms with Second A protections are those with a military utility, and how much closer to "military utility" can you get than the stuff the US military has and uses) That was supposedly why the US military discontinued 40mm buckshot. per Miller, that meant there was a military utility to 14.5" shotgun barrels as on the M203 and President Shrub was not going to let gun rights gain ground if he could prevent it (remember his offer to sign an extension to the "Assault Weapons Ban if Congress would send it to him) even at the cost of US service men and women's lives.
This leads to the fact that while Paul Revere's ride was to save civilian owned field artillery and small arms, if you were to try and have those precise field guns made today, those reproductions (possibly not the originals due to antiquity and collectible value) would require the same class 3 license as a machine gun. And an explosive charge license for each shot as I am told.
I find it disturbing and amusing at the same time that I encounter many "pro gun" FUDDs that keep wanting to be eaten last by offering up to keeping guns out of the hands of felons and crazy people with more laws and expanded background checks. It's the same argument the collectivists use. "Laws" will not prevent those who wish to obtain what they wish, merely keeping the obedient citizens from doing so. Where there is a will, there is a way. And believe me, those of us who INSIST upon living free have found, and are highly capable of acquiring more means to stay free.
While I don't disagree with his position in the slightest the reason for 2A was to stop tyranny. That can only be accomplished by standing armies or in our modern day world also militarized police forces.
So an alternative would be to trim our military forces to a truly defensive role. Get rid of every Federal "police" agency and all of their SWAT teams and go back to Sheriffs being the primary police force.
Once all of that was done we probably wouldn't have a need to own rocket launchers just to fend off a tyrannical government.
Im not disagreeing with this. However, look at history. Crooked politicians and businessmen (people who had lots of money)used whatever weapons at their disposal to keep the workers (people who had little money)in check. This included belt fed machine guns, mortars and Arial bombs. My great grand father was killed in such a incident.
Cannons, bazookas and missiles? Works for me. Although when I hear guys like Hice promoting gun control ("provided that they have a clean record"), I have to roll my eyes. Obama does not have a "clean" record does he - since he claims the right to kill anyone in the world, and has been the cause of the deaths of thousands.
Reading the comments of the linked article showed a lot of hysterical ignorance. Those people truly believe that once a law has been adjudicated, that's the end of the matter. Well, at least with laws they disagree with.
I agree with Hice in his comment that law enforcement and the Feds shouldn't have anything that members of the public are prohibited from having. Actually, the public can only have certain weapons IF they can afford all the Fees the government charges to possess them. Since the Fed agencies and law enforcement agencies aren't required to pay all those Fees per weapon, the public shouldn't be required to pay them either !! Whether the Fee is called a Tax Stamp or anything else, if one doesn't have to pay it but another does, that seems pretty discriminatory to me.
Relative to the commenter saying that the forces should go back to the Sheriffs, I offer the following suggestion, and Mike has the ability and expertise or connections that I'm sure could achieve creating it.
Some one needs to start a website that lists Sherffs across the country that have the balls to do their jobs and represent their counties and citizens against the damn government that’s trying to sneak the illegals into their counties. Paul Babeu of Pinal County, AZ and a very small number (maybe 6 or 7) of Sheriffs across the country have had the guts to tell the Feds to go pound sand over this crap and the gun control shit. If the internet is so great, someone needs to start a website that lists all Sheriffs by name and counties and states, so those that have the guts to do their jobs are aware of those that don’t !! And it should also be available to the citizens nationwde so they’ll know if their Sheriffs are protecting them or kissing the corrupt government’s collective asses.
What you are looking for is cspoa.org While I know there is no need to post this here I will anyway. "Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. 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 ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tench Coxe, in the Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20 1788
16 comments:
He is right. Since it is hard for the average American to purchase and maintain an Apache helicopter, I would like to see true individual State run and maintained volunteer Militias now that the Feds control the National Guard. Or return the National Guard to the States. Allow anyone over 18 with a clean mental and legal record to join and be trained.
It would be interesting seeing SAMs available at local gun shows.
seems like the peanut gallery is full of these guys
I don't recall Hice saying that we NEED bazookas, only that if somebody can afford one they ought to be able to do so. I would have liked to be able to post that question there. I would have also liked to ask all the folks considering us loony, why, if we're so loony, they take such delight in trying to set us off. After all, we may be loony but WE'RE the ones who are likely to have guns. Mama Liberty's sage quote would seem to apply here. And Kurt Hoffmann's "despised by the despicable" is surely in force.
{sigh} There really ARE two Americas and I fear that soon there may not be even one.
Read the comments! It'll be months before they get their undies unknotted! lol
And chemicals, biological, and nuclear materials.
These also serve to threaten those who threaten us.
Honest, law abiding citizens have nothing to fear. It's the criminal element and our government ( one in the same) that fear an armed citizenry.
What many of the commenters, the ones that would have us all armed with smooth bore muskets, at the article fail to realize is that the precedent has already been set. The private ownership of artillery in the 'states'. can be traced back to colonial times.
Being specific, many privately owned merchant ships were armed with cannon. A good sized merchantman with a decent broadside would sport more artillery than most small armies.
Definitely for the wealthy though.
hbbill
Somewhere behind enemy lines,
Peoples Republik of Kommiefornia
That would be consistent with the determining USSC decision prior to Heller that being Miller (the only firearms with Second A protections are those with a military utility, and how much closer to "military utility" can you get than the stuff the US military has and uses)
That was supposedly why the US military discontinued 40mm buckshot. per Miller, that meant there was a military utility to 14.5" shotgun barrels as on the M203 and President Shrub was not going to let gun rights gain ground if he could prevent it (remember his offer to sign an extension to the "Assault Weapons Ban if Congress would send it to him) even at the cost of US service men and women's lives.
This leads to the fact that while Paul Revere's ride was to save civilian owned field artillery and small arms, if you were to try and have those precise field guns made today, those reproductions (possibly not the originals due to antiquity and collectible value) would require the same class 3 license as a machine gun. And an explosive charge license for each shot as I am told.
I find it disturbing and amusing at the same time that I encounter many "pro gun" FUDDs that keep wanting to be eaten last by offering up to keeping guns out of the hands of felons and crazy people with more laws and expanded background checks. It's the same argument the collectivists use. "Laws" will not prevent those who wish to obtain what they wish, merely keeping the obedient citizens from doing so. Where there is a will, there is a way. And believe me, those of us who INSIST upon living free have found, and are highly capable of acquiring more means to stay free.
Liberty Clause
While I don't disagree with his position in the slightest the reason for 2A was to stop tyranny. That can only be accomplished by standing armies or in our modern day world also militarized police forces.
So an alternative would be to trim our military forces to a truly defensive role. Get rid of every Federal "police" agency and all of their SWAT teams and go back to Sheriffs being the primary police force.
Once all of that was done we probably wouldn't have a need to own rocket launchers just to fend off a tyrannical government.
Im not disagreeing with this. However, look at history. Crooked politicians and businessmen (people who had lots of money)used whatever weapons at their disposal to keep the workers (people who had little money)in check. This included belt fed machine guns, mortars and Arial bombs. My great grand father was killed in such a incident.
Cannons, bazookas and missiles? Works for me. Although when I hear guys like Hice promoting gun control ("provided that they have a clean record"), I have to roll my eyes. Obama does not have a "clean" record does he - since he claims the right to kill anyone in the world, and has been the cause of the deaths of thousands.
Reading the comments of the linked article showed a lot of hysterical ignorance. Those people truly believe that once a law has been adjudicated, that's the end of the matter. Well, at least with laws they disagree with.
-Blake
Personally I favour 'defensive weapons' ... like Claymores.
It is amazing how polite visitors become once they realise that they stand in the blast zone of one of them thingies!
III
I agree with Hice in his comment that law enforcement and the Feds shouldn't have anything that members of the public are prohibited from having. Actually, the public can only have certain weapons IF they can afford all the Fees the government charges to possess them. Since the Fed agencies and law enforcement agencies aren't required to pay all those Fees per weapon, the public shouldn't be required to pay them either !! Whether the Fee is called a Tax Stamp or anything else, if one doesn't have to pay it but another does, that seems pretty discriminatory to me.
Relative to the commenter saying that the forces should go back to the Sheriffs, I offer the following suggestion, and Mike has
the ability and expertise or connections that I'm sure could achieve creating it.
Some one needs to start a
website that lists
Sherffs across the country that have the balls to do their
jobs and represent
their counties
and citizens against the
damn government that’s
trying to sneak the illegals into their counties. Paul Babeu
of Pinal County, AZ
and a very
small number (maybe 6 or
7) of Sheriffs across
the country have had the guts to tell the Feds to go pound
sand over this crap
and the gun
control shit. If
the internet is so
great, someone needs to start a website that lists all
Sheriffs by name and
counties and states, so those that
have the guts to do their
jobs are aware of
those that don’t !! And it should also be available
to the citizens
nationwde so they’ll know if their
Sheriffs are protecting
them or kissing the
corrupt government’s collective asses.
What you are looking for is cspoa.org
While I know there is no need to post this here I will anyway.
"Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. 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 ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe, in the Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20 1788
Post a Comment