It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Militia on trial.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   
There are a few threads on the 2A lately so you may want to take a look at this.
This will save me from posting in all the threads.

The word machine gun will pop up so I'll ask the question now.

A auto firearm in the hands of non-criminal, tax paying citizen is going to hurt who?

fwatch.blogspot.com...

Do more searchs on "Hollis Wayne Fincher".

Roper




posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   


posted by Roper

The word machine gun will pop up so I'll ask the question now. A auto firearm in the hands of non-criminal, tax paying citizen is going to hurt who? Roper [Edited by Don W]



Roper, you have posited me a straw man! Your hypothetical man “ . . non-criminal, tax paying citizen . . “ is surely no threat to any other law abiding citizen. I want to know about the neighborhood drug czar who has already killed a half dozen competing dealers and who is armed with full auto hand carried machine gun. Uzi family. Unlicensed, indeed the gun is stolen. A sociopath who actually seems to enjoy killing other people.

Now the connection I make is this: because there are too many people like your good strawman, the odds of his weapon falling into the hands of bad people is several orders of magnitude greater than say, a bad guy who lives in Helsinki. Or Christchurch. And etc.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite



posted by Roper

The word machine gun will pop up so I'll ask the question now. A auto firearm in the hands of non-criminal, tax paying citizen is going to hurt who? Roper [Edited by Don W]



I want to know about the neighborhood drug czar who has already killed a half dozen competing dealers and who is armed with full auto hand carried machine gun. Uzi family.


They already are Don. So why can't a citizen?

Roper



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I think that this is relevant.


It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

www.guncite.com...



In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

www.guncite.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   


posted by GradyPhilpott

I think that this is relevant. [Edited by Don W]



Thank you Mr G/P, for the factual updates. I remember well the arguments offered why there should not be a CCW program for everyone. It is very reassuring to know that only in 1 or 2 instances has anyone authorized to CCW abused that privilege. Hmm? Note I said privilege and not right. You may think it incongruent but I have had a CCW permit since the inception in Ky. My current permit expires in 2009. Neither before nor after the permit have I carried a CW. But I can if I want to. I traded off my 2 .45s and now have only a Beretta 79S in .22 cal. But looking at it, you might not know it was not a 9 mm.

There are too many guns in America. Far and away too many. I am at a loss how to reduce the numbers in the current climate of easy acceptance of 30,000 dead by guns each year in the US of A. Half the population don’t give a hoot and half of the other half insist the more guns the better or the safer you are. The remaining number would support any reasonable measure - maybe even a bit unreasonable - to reduce the numbers and availability of firearms. OTOH. If we as a people felt no public revulsion to the murder of JFK, 1963, or of MLKJr and RFK, 1958, nor the 2 attempts on Gerald Ford, the near miss on Reagan, then it is unlikely I’ll live long enough to witness the sea change necessary to turn the tide.

I’m mot forgetting the attempt on HST’s life in 1949, in which a guard was killed. Nor on FDR’s life in 1933. Killing the Mayor of Miami. Nor the failed attempt on Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Nor the murder of William McKinley in 1900. Nor the murder of James Garfield in 1880. And etc.


[edit on 1/7/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Considering this is taking place in my hometown it explains all the, "Free Hollis" bumper stickers i've been seeing.

Then again, This is Arkansas. The governor himself has described it as a banana republic and he was being honest.

Hollis is in jail and his guilt is assured, the trial is just a formality.

Just my thoughts on it,



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
doesn't the person become unlawful when they have a weapon that's illegal to own?

i mean, they had to get the weapon through some illegal channel...

just my 2 cents



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   


posted by madnessinmysoul

doesn't the person become unlawful when they have a weapon that's illegal to own? I mean, they had to get the weapon through some illegal channel...just my 2 cents [Edited by Don W]



Sometimes possession is itself a crime, as in RSP - receiving stolen property. (Even that has limits. See below.) If the statute says possession is unlawful, then your question is "Yes." Sometimes it is impossible to prove something you know is true. Randy Weaver made that boo-boo. He cut a rifle or shotgun barrel too short. Mere possession of a "sawed off" is a crime as well as being a crime for the person who did the cutting or selling.

Note: RSP. As relates to pesonal property applies only to "recently stolen movable personal property."


[edit on 1/7/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Thank you Mr G/P, for the factual updates. I remember well the arguments offered why there should not be a CCW program for everyone. It is very reassuring to know that only in 1 or 2 instances has anyone authorized to CCW abused that privilege.


The information I provided is about fully automatic weapons, not Concealed Carry Permits, which is what I think you are implying.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   


posted by GradyPhilpott

The information I provided is about fully automatic weapons, not Concealed Carry Permits, which is what I think you are implying.



I knew that, but as in the small number of full auto abuses, so also is it true in the CCW arena. I would ask you this: if the reverse had been the facts of the case, that is, if the civilian had shot the cop, instead of the other way around, do you think the jail sentence would have been the same?



[edit on 1/7/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite



posted by Roper

The word machine gun will pop up so I'll ask the question now. A auto firearm in the hands of non-criminal, tax paying citizen is going to hurt who? Roper [Edited by Don W]



Roper, you have posited me a straw man! Your hypothetical man “ . . non-criminal, tax paying citizen . . “ is surely no threat to any other law abiding citizen. I want to know about the neighborhood drug czar who has already killed a half dozen competing dealers and who is armed with full auto hand carried machine gun. Uzi family. Unlicensed, indeed the gun is stolen. A sociopath who actually seems to enjoy killing other people.

Now the connection I make is this: because there are too many people like your good strawman, the odds of his weapon falling into the hands of bad people is several orders of magnitude greater than say, a bad guy who lives in Helsinki. Or Christchurch. And etc.


And drug leaders (any criminal) can't get a gun because the law says you can't have one?



That's like saying "We should make murder ilegal so that no one kills eachother."



Is it not true that criminals intent to break the law is just that? An intent to break the law? .. Will they not break the law to get a gun to break the law? That's what I thought.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Militia on trial. By Roper

M I L I T I A. Militia means “military service” in Latin. Usage defines it as a civilian auxiliary to regular forces. Or, a band resisting an organized military as in Iraq, which we are calling “insurgents” today, but we also hear of militias in Africa. As in Mogadishu. In the 19th century, we liked the word “insurrectionists” to apply to disagreeable fellows.

“Militia” is famous today as one word found in the US Constitution's Amendment Two. It appears 4 other times in the body of the Constitution in Article I (the Legislative article) Section 8, enumerating the powers of Congress. Note: there are 27 words in the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment has become popular especially with the pro gun lobby and fellow-travelers. Reciting the Second Amendment generates a lot more heat than it does light amongst those people. Because of its intended or unintended frequent association with the ole boy Red Neck mentality of the scraggy dressed unshaved pooh white boy driving a carefully dented 1970s Ford F150 with a look alike cowboy’s lever action rifle hung in the rear window - really a cheap Marlin .22 but it looks like a Winchester ‘73 in .30-30 caliber. It (the 2nd) is their raison d’etre.

Despite several unfulfilled efforts by legislators around the nation to make all or most WASP boys a state militia, the concept is passe and the times have passed them buy. Ops. I mean “by” but you know, the real pro Gun Lobby has latched onto this misconceived expression of independence to advance the unregulated sale of firearms in America the likes of which are found only in Uganda and The Congo.

The only word I can think of to describe the linguistic style of the Second Amendment is “discombobulated.” Our founding document is exquisitely written, succinct with brevity and clarity being its hallmarks. Making the Second Amendment an anomaly. But not necessarily for those of us who normally put the subject of a sentence in front and the verbs and modifiers in the back. Have you not noticed, you never hear otherwise intelligent people who are supporters of the Second Amendment speak that way in normal conversation. It’s like verbal dyslexia. Talking backwards.

Because the Second Amendment replaced a similar provision in the Constitution’s progenitor, the Articles of Confederation, I believe it is helpful to recite from Article 6, paragraph 4, as found in the Avalon Project via Google.

“ . . but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”

Foot Note: From US Con. Article 1, Section 8. “Militia . . (15) to execute the laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasions . . (16) Congress shall provide for organizing, the arming and disciplining . . (16) Reserving to the states the appointment of the officers and the right to train the militias according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . (16) Congress shall provide for governing such part of them [militias] as may be employed by the United States . . “ Clause # is indicated in parenthesis.

I think it is patently obvious the Second Amendment has nothing to do with giving individuals a special right to own firearms. That was not in question in the early United States. Anyone who could afford a firearm was perfectly well expected to own one or more. It just was not an issue.


[edit on 1/9/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
while im certainly not in the "cold dead fingers" crowd, i would be hard pressed to give up my guns.

but people always forget one thing, and ill get to that thing in a moment.

i see a lot of people on these boards talking about how they fear that the current govt is trying to instill themselves as a dictatorship or doing all these things to take away our rights.

thats the main reason for the 2nd amendment. as long as the us citizen has a gun, the govt will NOT be able to just do away with the constitution.

cops/mililtary do NOT want to face 100 million pissed off gun owners not to mention the fact that many cops/military are also gun owners who want to live in a free nation as much as the rest of us.

my thoughts.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
while im certainly not in the "cold dead fingers" crowd, i would be hard pressed to give up my guns.


What crowd are you in, then.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   
lol great question.

i use 'cold dead fingers' crowd to describe what i and many think of as the real whack jobs in the anti gun laws crowd.

im a gun enthusiast and a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment but im also in favor of LOGICAL gun control laws. i think the assault rifles ban was a joke, but im all in favor of anyone convicted of domestic violence not being able to own a gun.

but, if there was ever a revolution in the country against the govt that was way out of control (and no i dont think the current govt is bad enough to require an armed revolt at this time) its not outside the realm of possibility that i would stand with them (the revolutionaries that is)



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Don you are sounding like the elitist crowd, you appear to be looking down your nose at people. Interesting!

I think it has been proven over and over again in the real world that government can't save us. The police show up after the crime, it's the people that are there during the crime and it's the people that can stop crime as it happens.

The People stopping crime as it happens is what the criminal fears. Criminals are predators and need to be treated as such.

Roper



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   


posted by Roper

Don you are sounding like the elitist crowd, you appear to be looking down your nose at people. [Edited by Don W]



I did not mean to convey that impression. On topics I feel strongly about, I get carried away with my own words and forget this is a free country. I feel properly chastised.



I think it has been proven over and over again in the real world that government can't save us. The police show up after the crime, it's the people that are there during the crime that can stop crime as it happens. The people stopping crime as it happens is what the criminal fears. Criminals are predators and need to be treated as such. Roper [Edited by Don W]



Would that it were so.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join