No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer

Full story: Wizbang 218
So sayeth New York Governor Andrew "Son of Mario" Cuomo in his State of the State speech today as he railed against the semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine politicians refer to as assault weapons and high-capacity magazines used in said assault weapons and many modern handguns. Full Story
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#70 Jan 18, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
And fast forward to today, where we have a President and a congress with as much credibility and honor as Lance Armstrong. The liberals all love this President though because he is THEIR cheater and liar, so of course, that makes it OK. I love my country, but I fear my President and what he intends to do with it.
You are incorrect. The president and Congress do not have as much credibility and honor as Armstrong. At least he went on Oprah and 'fessed up. Sort of, anyway.
Say the Truth

Lansdale, PA

#71 Jan 18, 2013
Kitty wrote:
Those gun.owners go crazy when their stinking rights are threatened!. They need to consider the rest of us Americans rights. Like abortion and same sex marriage. Those gun rights people are selfish, pigs who only care about their stinking selves!!!.
/sarcasm off/

I hope.
Some Guy

New York, NY

#72 Jan 18, 2013
History Guy wrote:
On April 18, 1775 700 Redcoats under the direction of Major John Pitcairn were to march from Boston to sieze a stockpile of guns and ammo that the Sons of Liberty had been keeping in Concord MA just in case a showdown with the British actually took place.
In the town of Lexington, 70 militia men stood up against the 700 and were told by Pitcairn to "lay down your arms and disperse." They didn't and a skirmish broke out that would become the first shots of the American Revolution.
When the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution, it was incidents like these that brought about many of the first ten amendments.
The 2nd was written in response to this, the 3rd in response to homes being taken for quatering by British soldiers w/o compensation. The 4th was due to writs of assistance allowing homes searches w/o warrants. They didn't write the amendments in a vacuum. All of them were in response to what they experienced as British subjects, whose rights were being taken away.
Well said, however with the advancement of military technologies that are currently controlled by the politicians you would potentially be defending your rights and property from, countless AR's in your home would be wholly ineffective. Regardless of your cache, absent a military coup against a tyrannical government, the citizenry would have two choices; die, or fall in line. No amount of guns would defeat the US Milltary. The Forefathers presumed that similar weapons technology would be available to either side, and it would simply come down to man vs. man. They couldn't consider tanks, ballistic missiles, f-15s, etc., etc.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#73 Jan 18, 2013
Kitty wrote:
Those gun.owners go crazy when their stinking rights are threatened!. They need to consider the rest of us Americans rights. Like abortion and same sex marriage.
O rly? The Right to abort fetuses and the Right to same-sex marriage?

Which Bill of Rights Amendments to the US Constitutional cover those, Kitty? I'm having trouble finding them.

Thanks awfully ... ciao, baby!
The Stinker

Hickory, KY

#74 Jan 18, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
O rly? The Right to abort fetuses and the Right to same-sex marriage?
Which Bill of Rights Amendments to the US Constitutional cover those, Kitty? I'm having trouble finding them.
Thanks awfully ... ciao, baby!
Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply from her. She has yet to answer a question.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#75 Jan 18, 2013
Some Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said, however with the advancement of military technologies that are currently controlled by the politicians you would potentially be defending your rights and property from, countless AR's in your home would be wholly ineffective. Regardless of your cache, absent a military coup against a tyrannical government, the citizenry would have two choices; die, or fall in line. No amount of guns would defeat the US Milltary. The Forefathers presumed that similar weapons technology would be available to either side, and it would simply come down to man vs. man. They couldn't consider tanks, ballistic missiles, f-15s, etc., etc.
This common internet meme founders on at least four simple and obvious grounds:

1) The US Military is bound by OATH to defend the US Constitution, NOT a tyrannical government. US military are trained to obey only LAWFUL orders under UCMJ Art. 92. The primary source for lawful orders is the US Constitution, and any order that interferes with constitutional law is by definition an unlawful order that must be refused. Honorable military officers can safely be counted on to stand by their Oaths in this regard should they ever receive any de facto unlawful orders from a rogue President or Congress to act against the People's Constitutional rights.

2) Use of the US Military to enforce law and order within a State ("in posse comitatus") is expressly prohibited by federal Law (18 USC 1835), unless authorized by the POTUS AND Act of Congress. No such authority exists except under the Insurrection Act (10 USC 331-335), which Congress and the President are severly restricted from invoking by their Constitutional Oath and Article. 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. These are very high bulwarks standing between the People and any use of the US Military in armed conflict against the People.

3) In the event of a breakdown of all these legal and Constitutional safeguards, it is OBVIOUS that the calculations of a rogue tyrannical US President, Congress, and Military that is contemplating unconstitutional subjugation of the sovereign States or the People will be VASTLY different if they are facing a completely disarmed populace as opposed to a population that remains free to keep and bear the 300 million firearms currently in the hands of the People, making it FAR less likely that they would calculate they could succeed in subverting the Constitution and subjugating an armed People. It is silly and sophist to even suggest otherwise.

4) Should the "Red Dawn" scenario actually come about - a free armed People defending themselves by force of arms against subjugation by a tyrannical federal government and US military, the repeated experiences in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan of the full force of the US military, for all its "tanks, ballistic missiles, f-15s, etc., etc.," stretched to the point of complete breakdown and still failing to stamp out armed insurgencies puts the lie conclusively to this silly meme. Armed insugencies in these 3 countries with populations and land area on a par with only a single US State (California) defeated the full force of the US military. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that the US military, for all its "tanks, ballistic missiles, f-15s, etc., etc.," would have the remotest capability to suppress a general insurgency of a free, armed American People defending their Constitution and Freedoms. The heavy weapons in numerous Reserve and National Guard (= "Militia") depots would not remain so for long, in such a scenario. Any military professional would immediately agree with this assessment.

So lets hear no more of this nonsense meme of the People's 2A Rights being irrelevant in modern times, ok? It's patently silly.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#76 Jan 18, 2013
The Stinker wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply from her. She has yet to answer a question.
That's ok - not expecting an answer; the question is rhetorical and the answer is obvious. No such express Constitutional "rights" exist, in contrast to those Rights, like the individual Right to keep and bear arms, which ARE expressly protected by the Constitution.
History Guy

AOL

#77 Jan 18, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Because in the early founding decades we were starting our "nation of immigrants" influx, and the college was established as a check and balance to the potential of foreign operatives coming here and wresting some control over who is placed in office. They wanted to insure that no undue influence could alter the direction of the new land away from its new constitution.
How do you figure? This was a time when only white men, over the age of 21, and landowners could vote.
bronconama

West Islip, NY

#78 Jan 19, 2013
what if the deer has frieds
Obskeptic

Livonia, MI

#79 Jan 19, 2013
History Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you figure? This was a time when only white men, over the age of 21, and landowners could vote.
Obviously the newly formed America was at its most fragile point when it was first formed, and the founders wanted to prevent forming a system that would encourage individual states from wresting an undue influence away from other states. Population was also a critical factor in these considerations. Remember they also did not have the communications necessary to wage any campaigns, and in the beginning, political parties were frowned upon and really did not exist for a decade or two after adopting the new constitution. A number of plans were considered, and the "college" has had some changes over time. Don't forget, mob rule, like we are adopting today, was not part of the plan. That is why the founders did not create for us a democracy to be ruled by. We have evolved to that as a result of our political parties and media influence. The point is, there were more then a single reason they did this. They were trying to insure the fledgling republic had a good chance to succeed, and not get bogged down in the mud and minutia we are today.
History Guy

AOL

#80 Jan 19, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously the newly formed America was at its most fragile point when it was first formed, and the founders wanted to prevent forming a system that would encourage individual states from wresting an undue influence away from other states. Population was also a critical factor in these considerations. Remember they also did not have the communications necessary to wage any campaigns, and in the beginning, political parties were frowned upon and really did not exist for a decade or two after adopting the new constitution. A number of plans were considered, and the "college" has had some changes over time. Don't forget, mob rule, like we are adopting today, was not part of the plan. That is why the founders did not create for us a democracy to be ruled by. We have evolved to that as a result of our political parties and media influence. The point is, there were more then a single reason they did this. They were trying to insure the fledgling republic had a good chance to succeed, and not get bogged down in the mud and minutia we are today.
I know all that, but what I question is your statenment about "nation of immigrants". In 1789, the majority of Americans were English, Scotch-Irish, German and French. Who were the immigrants they feared could take over?
I have to say, I never heard anything like that before.
Uncle Ben

Center Moriches, NY

#81 Jan 19, 2013
History Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know all that, but what I question is your statenment about "nation of immigrants". In 1789, the majority of Americans were English, Scotch-Irish, German and French. Who were the immigrants they feared could take over?
I have to say, I never heard anything like that before.
They were talking about the Africans, Kenyans and Italians. Duh ! LOL
Foreign Operative

New York, NY

#82 Jan 19, 2013
Italians yes that is a population that needs to be controlled!
Uncle Ben

Center Moriches, NY

#83 Jan 19, 2013
Foreign Operative wrote:
Italians yes that is a population that needs to be controlled!
LOL, Easily done --give them a warm wife, a hot goomahdey--a decent meal and you've got a happy camper. Not so with other folks ... All else aside though--this 7 round magazine deal is ridiculous. Guys like myself who don't believe in flexing my testosterone at the expense of an innocent animal slung across my trunk panel because I'm a big bad macho hunter, instead I do alot of target shooting and various ranges. Competition shooting is alot of fun, especially when your firing at targets 200 to 300 yds out--it takes concentration as well as skill. The truth is, it's a pain in the butt to have to keep loading up every 7th shot--it's like "What is this politician thinking? It take a split second to start pulling and switching magazines--Is he kidding ? On my end of it it's a nuisance , because you're firing at the target all the way out there with your bi-pod and your spotter is giving you feed back to adjust your sights or position and after 7 you gotta change clips again --They are doing everything possible to take away our rights. This will accomplish absolutely nothing. I cant believe how wrong I was about this governor--I actually thought he had a brain when I voted for him --
Obskeptic

Warren, MI

#84 Jan 20, 2013
History Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know all that, but what I question is your statenment about "nation of immigrants". In 1789, the majority of Americans were English, Scotch-Irish, German and French. Who were the immigrants they feared could take over?
I have to say, I never heard anything like that before.
The British for one. You don't think it pissed them off just a little losing their cash cow? Their is more then one way to bring a country down don't you know. Like the democrats strategy to ruin our currency and credit rating, enslave our children to massive debt, teach them ignorance about their history through a "public education system", or just kill them in the womb because THEY have redefined what a murder is. I think the war of 1812 confirmed some of those suspicions. After all, they did set fire to the capital.
Conspiracy Theory

Lindenhurst, NY

#85 Jan 20, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
The British for one. You don't think it pissed them off just a little losing their cash cow? Their is more then one way to bring a country down don't you know. Like the democrats strategy to ruin our currency and credit rating, enslave our children to massive debt, teach them ignorance about their history through a "public education system", or just kill them in the womb because THEY have redefined what a murder is. I think the war of 1812 confirmed some of those suspicions. After all, they did set fire to the capital.
The British are coming! The British are coming!
Obskeptic

Warren, MI

#86 Jan 20, 2013
Conspiracy Theory wrote:
<quoted text>
The British are coming! The British are coming!
Your so funny. Cracking jokes is a nervous response to the fact that your ignorant of the subject matter. Again, why not show your belief with pride and put a sign in your front yard or window declaring yours a gun free zone. And remember, when just seconds could mean the difference between you or your family surviving a home invasion or not, the police are just minutes away if you can make the call.
Conspiracy Theory

Lindenhurst, NY

#87 Jan 20, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Your so funny. Cracking jokes is a nervous response to the fact that your ignorant of the subject matter. Again, why not show your belief with pride and put a sign in your front yard or window declaring yours a gun free zone. And remember, when just seconds could mean the difference between you or your family surviving a home invasion or not, the police are just minutes away if you can make the call.
Guns are for cowards like you.
Maude

Lynbrook, NY

#88 Jan 20, 2013
We may not need 10 bullets to kill a deer but we may need more becouse the bad guys have more.
Plotts

Saint James, NY

#89 Jan 20, 2013
Maude wrote:
We may not need 10 bullets to kill a deer but we may need more becouse the bad guys have more.
The problem is defining who really are the bad guys.....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 41 min Nemo Noone aka Op... 15,057
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 57 min cpeter1313 305,611
NY Who do you support for Governor in New York in ... (Oct '10) 1 hr henu 6,432
I hate new York York (Sep '11) 1 hr moral man 48
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 1 hr YANKEES 4 LIFE 307,992
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 2 hr the real deal 10,574
jets talk back (Dec '07) 2 hr JETS 4 LIFE 9,037
•••

Jackson-Heights News Video

•••
•••

Jackson-Heights Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Jackson-Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Jackson-Heights News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Jackson-Heights
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••