How do I avoid looking and acting American while traveling in Europe?

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Gunner
foisted Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:25:37
GMT on
misc.survivalism , viz:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:31 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



gruhn wrote:

So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.

Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give
an
answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"?

Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it
doesn't
fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small
arms, only a few can safeguard a tank.

John Mullen

**** John..where the hell did you get THAT stupid idea?

Padlocks work just fine for safeguarding a tank.

And there are other minor tricks you can do to disable any piece of
heavy equipment. Distributor caps, or equivalent.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."
--multiplaza.nl.nu--
post
Subject: Paris Notes (2)
From: lid )
Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: newsSync (Multiplaza) 387214
References:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:29:14 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Donna Evleth writes:

I know this. But Europeans do not always know this. So that is why
I
appended the "as in native Americans," to distinguish from Indians
from

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:17:28 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:


At the time of its writing,
those arms were essentially the same as hunting weapons.

No. I’ve never hunted squirrels with my 8 pounder cannon. It
would be fun to try, I suppose.


And, individuals did not possess eight pounder cannon, either.


Ah..yes they did. Along with warships etc etc

States do have militias with considerable weaponry, but
most of us do not have the resources to have most kinds of
weapon.

The whole PHILOSOPHY was that the states provide the vast
majority of the military of the United States, with the
federal government providing a core cadre and standardization
in weapons in training.

You are confusing the militia with the National Guard.

Ah...no. The militia is included in the Constitution. The NG was
formed in 1907

Which is exactly why the ACLU is so important in the
USA.

The ACLU, as pointed out in another thread, has contempt
for the right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU’s apparent
goal as revealed by their actions is to pervert the
constitution to the point of absurdity so as to cause the
downfall of the United States.

Well not the ACLU around here.

It doesn’t matter where the ACLU is, their goal is the same.


No, it isn't. As long as Congress writes laws which require
citizens to
sue to get their rights, we will need an organization like the ACLU.
Otherwise, there will only be justice for the wealthy.

snip

The left wing has perverted the courts by putting
socialist willing to lie and do whatever else they need to
do to pervert the constitution. The founders knew that
this could happen; the anti-federalist predicted this very
problem. That is why we have the second amendment.

And, what sort of perversions do you have in mind?

See, for example, Miller, which made stupid assumptions about
the kinds of arms recognized as protected by the second
amendment that are not in the constitution.

Well, the state also has a duty to protect its citizens. A
sawed-off
shotgun is a favorite of criminals.

There is the “right” to not be offended, which is a perversion
of the constitution. The right to not be offended does not
exist. What offends you is your own problem.


The use of offensive speech often is a precursor or a reminder of
more
substantial acts. That is, it is a form of intimidation. Because
offensive speech is closely linked with discrimination, it is often
taken as evidence that discrimination exists. It is not, in itself
illegal.

There is the “right” to force others to associate with you,
against their wishes. This was a gross perversion of the
interstate commerce clause to force local business NOT to
discriminate on the basis of race or whatever.


People who participate in a commercial system have a right to share
it
its benefits. Anything less is economic slavery. If people want to
run
a business, they have a duty to serve all the public, within reason.
There is no guarantee in the Constitution of any merchant's right to
refuse to serve on the basis you suggest.

Sure there is. The right to free association.

There is the “right” to all kinds of government entitlements,
and entitlement being all those things to which no individual
is entitled to as a right.


The Constitution does not require any such entitlements, but does
require that distribution of such entitlements be without regard to
race
or ethnicity.

No..it doesnt. It only says that all are equal under the law.

The
right of every citizen to an effective legal defense and a
fair trial?

Ah yeah. The lawyer full employment act.


So, you would not mind if some government bozo decided to arrest you
and
hold you in prison for an indefinite period of time without being
charged or ...


Habious Corpus (sp) is legal tenet of our legal system.


Wait a minute. That's what is happening now. I'll just check back
after it happens to you.


The right of non-Christians to expect the same
legal treatment as "Christians?"

Ah yes, the right to not be offended by Christian symbols and
names! It won’t be long before you people force San Francisco
to be come just “Francisco” because the word San is Spanish
for saint and that offends you. You’ve already disposed of the
cross on the seal of the city of Los Angles (the Angles),
which was there because L.A. was founded as a Catholic
mission. That kind of legal treatment, the fictional right to
not be offended.

Well, our city logo consists of three crosses and the ACLU has made
it
clear to us that they do not have a problem with that. However,
there
was a local who said for years that he would get the ACLU to force a
change. He was very embarrassed when they refused to take up the
case.

See City of Los Angeles and the tiny white cross.

What I find offensive is the idea that people who are Christian have
a
greater right to the benefits of being a US citizen. These symbols
can
play a part in this attitude. By having these symbols maintained.
and
possibly paid for by, tax money, which the state collects under
duress
from all citizens, regardless of religious belief, is not
Constitutional. For one, it violates the separation of Church and
state.

No it doesnt.

Now, I've heard this type of hysterical argument before, but if you
look
at what is actually being challenged and banned, it is of the sort I
described above.

John Mullen

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:09:27 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:31 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



gruhn wrote:

So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.

Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give
an
answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"?

Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it
doesn't
fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small
arms, only a few can safeguard a tank.

John Mullen

**** John..where the hell did you get THAT stupid idea?

Padlocks work just fine for safeguarding a tank.

Gunner

Let me know when you plan to fit your tank with a padlock. This is
one
thing I'd like to see.

John Mullen

Its called a hasp. Anyone with a welder can do a proper job out of
it. And in fact..IRRC, most are so equipped to be secured with a lock.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:17:28 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:


At the time of its writing,
those arms were essentially the same as hunting weapons.

No. I’ve never hunted squirrels with my 8 pounder cannon. It
would be fun to try, I suppose.


And, individuals did not possess eight pounder cannon, either.


Ah..yes they did. Along with warships etc etc

States do have militias with considerable weaponry, but
most of us do not have the resources to have most kinds of
weapon.

The whole PHILOSOPHY was that the states provide the vast
majority of the military of the United States, with the
federal government providing a core cadre and standardization
in weapons in training.

You are confusing the militia with the National Guard.

Ah...no. The militia is included in the Constitution. The NG was
formed in 1907

Which is exactly why the ACLU is so important in the
USA.

The ACLU, as pointed out in another thread, has contempt
for the right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU’s apparent
goal as revealed by their actions is to pervert the
constitution to the point of absurdity so as to cause the
downfall of the United States.

Well not the ACLU around here.

It doesn’t matter where the ACLU is, their goal is the same.


No, it isn't. As long as Congress writes laws which require
citizens to
sue to get their rights, we will need an organization like the ACLU.
Otherwise, there will only be justice for the wealthy.

snip

The left wing has perverted the courts by putting
socialist willing to lie and do whatever else they need to
do to pervert the constitution. The founders knew that
this could happen; the anti-federalist predicted this very
problem. That is why we have the second amendment.

And, what sort of perversions do you have in mind?

See, for example, Miller, which made stupid assumptions about
the kinds of arms recognized as protected by the second
amendment that are not in the constitution.

Well, the state also has a duty to protect its citizens. A
sawed-off
shotgun is a favorite of criminals.

There is the “right” to not be offended, which is a perversion
of the constitution. The right to not be offended does not
exist. What offends you is your own problem.


The use of offensive speech often is a precursor or a reminder of
more
substantial acts. That is, it is a form of intimidation. Because
offensive speech is closely linked with discrimination, it is often
taken as evidence that discrimination exists. It is not, in itself
illegal.

There is the “right” to force others to associate with you,
against their wishes. This was a gross perversion of the
interstate commerce clause to force local business NOT to
discriminate on the basis of race or whatever.


People who participate in a commercial system have a right to share
it
its benefits. Anything less is economic slavery. If people want to
run
a business, they have a duty to serve all the public, within reason.
There is no guarantee in the Constitution of any merchant's right to
refuse to serve on the basis you suggest.

Sure there is. The right to free association.

There is the “right” to all kinds of government entitlements,
and entitlement being all those things to which no individual
is entitled to as a right.


The Constitution does not require any such entitlements, but does
require that distribution of such entitlements be without regard to
race
or ethnicity.

No..it doesnt. It only says that all are equal under the law.

The
right of every citizen to an effective legal defense and a
fair trial?

Ah yeah. The lawyer full employment act.


So, you would not mind if some government bozo decided to arrest you
and
hold you in prison for an indefinite period of time without being
charged or ...


Habious Corpus (sp) is legal tenet of our legal system.


Wait a minute. That's what is happening now. I'll just check back
after it happens to you.


The right of non-Christians to expect the same
legal treatment as "Christians?"

Ah yes, the right to not be offended by Christian symbols and
names! It won’t be long before you people force San Francisco
to be come just “Francisco” because the word San is Spanish
for saint and that offends you. You’ve already disposed of the
cross on the seal of the city of Los Angles (the Angles),
which was there because L.A. was founded as a Catholic
mission. That kind of legal treatment, the fictional right to
not be offended.

Well, our city logo consists of three crosses and the ACLU has made
it
clear to us that they do not have a problem with that. However,
there
was a local who said for years that he would get the ACLU to force a
change. He was very embarrassed when they refused to take up the
case.

See City of Los Angeles and the tiny white cross.

What I find offensive is the idea that people who are Christian have
a
greater right to the benefits of being a US citizen. These symbols
can
play a part in this attitude. By having these symbols maintained.
and
possibly paid for by, tax money, which the state collects under
duress
from all citizens, regardless of religious belief, is not
Constitutional. For one, it violates the separation of Church and
state.

No it doesnt.

Now, I've heard this type of hysterical argument before, but if you
look
at what is actually being challenged and banned, it is of the sort I
described above.

John Mullen

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:17:28 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:


At the time of its writing,
those arms were essentially the same as hunting weapons.

No. I’ve never hunted squirrels with my 8 pounder cannon. It
would be fun to try, I suppose.


And, individuals did not possess eight pounder cannon, either.


Ah..yes they did. Along with warships etc etc

States do have militias with considerable weaponry, but
most of us do not have the resources to have most kinds of
weapon.

The whole PHILOSOPHY was that the states provide the vast
majority of the military of the United States, with the
federal government providing a core cadre and standardization
in weapons in training.

You are confusing the militia with the National Guard.

Ah...no. The militia is included in the Constitution. The NG was
formed in 1907

Which is exactly why the ACLU is so important in the
USA.

The ACLU, as pointed out in another thread, has contempt
for the right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU’s apparent
goal as revealed by their actions is to pervert the
constitution to the point of absurdity so as to cause the
downfall of the United States.

Well not the ACLU around here.

It doesn’t matter where the ACLU is, their goal is the same.


No, it isn't. As long as Congress writes laws which require
citizens to
sue to get their rights, we will need an organization like the ACLU.
Otherwise, there will only be justice for the wealthy.

snip

The left wing has perverted the courts by putting
socialist willing to lie and do whatever else they need to
do to pervert the constitution. The founders knew that
this could happen; the anti-federalist predicted this very
problem. That is why we have the second amendment.

And, what sort of perversions do you have in mind?

See, for example, Miller, which made stupid assumptions about
the kinds of arms recognized as protected by the second
amendment that are not in the constitution.

Well, the state also has a duty to protect its citizens. A
sawed-off
shotgun is a favorite of criminals.

There is the “right” to not be offended, which is a perversion
of the constitution. The right to not be offended does not
exist. What offends you is your own problem.


The use of offensive speech often is a precursor or a reminder of
more
substantial acts. That is, it is a form of intimidation. Because
offensive speech is closely linked with discrimination, it is often
taken as evidence that discrimination exists. It is not, in itself
illegal.

There is the “right” to force others to associate with you,
against their wishes. This was a gross perversion of the
interstate commerce clause to force local business NOT to
discriminate on the basis of race or whatever.


People who participate in a commercial system have a right to share
it
its benefits. Anything less is economic slavery. If people want to
run
a business, they have a duty to serve all the public, within reason.
There is no guarantee in the Constitution of any merchant's right to
refuse to serve on the basis you suggest.

Sure there is. The right to free association.

There is the “right” to all kinds of government entitlements,
and entitlement being all those things to which no individual
is entitled to as a right.


The Constitution does not require any such entitlements, but does
require that distribution of such entitlements be without regard to
race
or ethnicity.

No..it doesnt. It only says that all are equal under the law.

The
right of every citizen to an effective legal defense and a
fair trial?

Ah yeah. The lawyer full employment act.


So, you would not mind if some government bozo decided to arrest you
and
hold you in prison for an indefinite period of time without being
charged or ...


Habious Corpus (sp) is legal tenet of our legal system.


Wait a minute. That's what is happening now. I'll just check back
after it happens to you.


The right of non-Christians to expect the same
legal treatment as "Christians?"

Ah yes, the right to not be offended by Christian symbols and
names! It won’t be long before you people force San Francisco
to be come just “Francisco” because the word San is Spanish
for saint and that offends you. You’ve already disposed of the
cross on the seal of the city of Los Angles (the Angles),
which was there because L.A. was founded as a Catholic
mission. That kind of legal treatment, the fictional right to
not be offended.

Well, our city logo consists of three crosses and the ACLU has made
it
clear to us that they do not have a problem with that. However,
there
was a local who said for years that he would get the ACLU to force a
change. He was very embarrassed when they refused to take up the
case.

See City of Los Angeles and the tiny white cross.

What I find offensive is the idea that people who are Christian have
a
greater right to the benefits of being a US citizen. These symbols
can
play a part in this attitude. By having these symbols maintained.
and
possibly paid for by, tax money, which the state collects under
duress
from all citizens, regardless of religious belief, is not
Constitutional. For one, it violates the separation of Church and
state.

No it doesnt.

Now, I've heard this type of hysterical argument before, but if you
look
at what is actually being challenged and banned, it is of the sort I
described above.

John Mullen

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:09:27 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:31 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



gruhn wrote:

So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.

Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give
an
answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"?

Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it
doesn't
fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small
arms, only a few can safeguard a tank.

John Mullen

**** John..where the hell did you get THAT stupid idea?

Padlocks work just fine for safeguarding a tank.

Gunner

Let me know when you plan to fit your tank with a padlock. This is
one
thing I'd like to see.

John Mullen

Its called a hasp. Anyone with a welder can do a proper job out of
it. And in fact..IRRC, most are so equipped to be secured with a lock.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:09:27 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:31 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



gruhn wrote:

So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.

Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give
an
answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"?

Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it
doesn't
fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small
arms, only a few can safeguard a tank.

John Mullen

**** John..where the hell did you get THAT stupid idea?

Padlocks work just fine for safeguarding a tank.

Gunner

Let me know when you plan to fit your tank with a padlock. This is
one
thing I'd like to see.

John Mullen

Its called a hasp. Anyone with a welder can do a proper job out of
it. And in fact..IRRC, most are so equipped to be secured with a lock.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:18:56 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:10:49 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

The constitution states citizens have a right to bear arms, but does
not
state that they have a right to the same arms the government has.

Yes it does.

Your claim..point out exactly where you think the right to same arms
as the military is invalid.

Then Ill rip it to shreds with citations.

Double dog dare you.

Gunner


Now, you may have citations to support your contention, but that
does
not change the fact that the Constitution states only that one has
the
right to bear arms, not particular arms.

John Mullen
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel060701.shtml

The dominant line of nineteenth-century interpretation protected
ownership only of weapons suitable for "civilized warfare." This
standard was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1939 United
States v. Miller case. There, the Court allowed defendants who never
claimed to be part of any militia (they were bootleggers) to raise a
Second Amendment claim. But the Supreme Court rejected the trial
court's determination that a federal law requiring the registration
and taxation of sawed-off shotguns was facially invalid as a violation
of the Second Amendment. Rather, said the Miller Court, a weapon is
only covered by the Second Amendment if it might contribute to the
efficiency of a well-regulated militia. And the Court could not take
judicial notice of militia uses for sawed-off shotguns. The case was
remanded for trial (at which the defendants could have offered
evidence that sawed-off shotguns have utility in a militia context),
but the trial was never held, since the defendants disappeared during
the pendency of the government's appeal of the dismissal of their
indictment.

A minority line of nineteenth-century arms-rights analysis — adopted
in the twentieth century, for example, by the Oregon Supreme Court —
goes further. This analysis protects not just militia-type weapons,
but also weapons which are useful for personal defense, even if not
useful in a military context. Thus, the Oregon state constitution's
right to arms was held to protect possession of billy clubs and
switchblades — weapons which were pointedly excluded from protection
by the civilized warfare cases. State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395, 692
P.2d 610 (1984)(switchblades); State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255 (1981)
(billy clubs).

With the civilized-warfare test as the constitutional minimum, efforts
to ban machine guns or ordinary guns that look like machine guns
(so-called "assault weapons") appear constitutionally dubious. These
rifles are selected for prohibition because gun-control lobbies claim
that the rifles are "weapons of war." This claim, if true, amounts to
an admission that the rifles lie at the core of the Second Amendment.

Today, once people understand that "assault weapons" are firearms that
are cosmetically threatening but functionally indistinguishable from
other long guns, they are willing to accord these arms a place within
the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns, in contrast, really are
functionally different. Machine guns are rarely used in crime; and
lawfully possessed machine guns, which must be registered with the
federal government, are essentially absent from the world of gun
crime. Nevertheless, even many people who consider themselves strong
Second Amendment supporters cannot bear the thought of a
constitutional right to own machine guns.

Attorney Stephen Halbrook, suggests that, "artillery pieces, tanks,
nuclear devices and other heavy ordinances are not constitutionally
protected" arms, nor are "grenades, bombs, bazookas and other devices
… which have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." (Steven
Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of
the Second Amendment, 49 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. at 153 (1986).)

But the Halbrook test sidesteps the fact that militia uses, not just
personal-defense uses, are part of the core of the Second Amendment.
Moreover, the Halbrook test could allow governments to ban new types
of guns or weapons, since those weapons, being new, "have never been
commonly possessed for self-defense." The test could allow Second
Amendment technology to be frozen, as if the government claimed that
new communications devices are unprotected by the First Amendment
because they have never (heretofore) been commonly used for speech.

Just as the civilized-warfare test protects firearms that many persons
want excluded from the Second Amendment, the test also excludes
firearms that many persons want to be included. The civilized-warfare
cases protected large handguns, but in some applications excluded
small, highly concealable handguns. This would suggest that modern
bans on small, inexpensive handguns might not violate the Second
Amendment. On the other hand, small handguns such as the Colt .25
pistol were used by the United States military during the Second World
War. (See Charles W. Pate, "Researching the Martial .25 Colt Pistol,"
Man at Arms, Jan./Feb. 1995, 20-29.) (Of course, anyone using the
civilized-warfare test to make such an argument must also accept the
flip side of the civilized-warfare coin: "Assault weapon" prohibition
is plainly unconstitutional.)

The nineteenth-century minority theory, however, would recognize
small, relatively inexpensive handguns as highly suitable for personal
defense, and accord them Second Amendment protection regardless of
their militia utility. Twentieth-century constitutional law reflects a
special concern for problems of minorities and the poor that was not
present in nineteenth-century law. Since a small handgun may be the
only effective means of protection that is affordable to a poor
person, and since the poor and minorities tend to receive inferior
police protection, modern equal-protection analysis might find some
problems with banning inexpensive guns, even if one sets aside the
Second Amendment. (Note, Markus T. Funk, The Melting Point
Case-in-Point, 85 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOL. 764 (1995).)

But under the main nineteenth-century line of cases, opponents of
banning small handguns must overcome the presumption in those cases
that small handguns are not suitable militia weapons; perhaps the
frequent and successful use of small handguns in twentieth-century
partisan warfare against the Nazis and other oppressive regimes offers
one potential line of argument.

Twenty-first century jurisprudence might update the civilized-warfare
test by changing the focus from the military to the police. The modern
American police, especially at the federal level, resemble in many
regards the standing army that so concerned the founders. While the
American army is geared toward overseas warfare, the police are
oriented toward the type of internal-order functions (e.g.,
suppression of riots), which were among traditional militia duties.
Accordingly, the twenty-first century question, "What are suitable
militia-type arms?" might be answered, "Arms that are typical of, or
suitable for, police duty." By the modernized test, high-quality
handguns (both revolvers and semiautomatics) would lie at the core.
Smaller, less expensive handguns (frequently carried by police
officers as back-up weapons, often in ankle holsters) would also pass
the test easily. Ordinary shotguns and rifles (often carried in patrol
cars) would also be protected. Machine guns and other weapons of war
are not currently ordinary police equipment, although they are
becoming common in special attack units.

Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the
English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which
is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other
American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows:

"Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body
.... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and
belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary."

Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the
distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive"
weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although
they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is
attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes
really is a good offense.

Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms"
also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious
constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of
bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government.


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



"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:18:56 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:10:49 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

The constitution states citizens have a right to bear arms, but does
not
state that they have a right to the same arms the government has.

Yes it does.

Your claim..point out exactly where you think the right to same arms
as the military is invalid.

Then Ill rip it to shreds with citations.

Double dog dare you.

Gunner


Now, you may have citations to support your contention, but that
does
not change the fact that the Constitution states only that one has
the
right to bear arms, not particular arms.

John Mullen
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel060701.shtml

The dominant line of nineteenth-century interpretation protected
ownership only of weapons suitable for "civilized warfare." This
standard was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1939 United
States v. Miller case. There, the Court allowed defendants who never
claimed to be part of any militia (they were bootleggers) to raise a
Second Amendment claim. But the Supreme Court rejected the trial
court's determination that a federal law requiring the registration
and taxation of sawed-off shotguns was facially invalid as a violation
of the Second Amendment. Rather, said the Miller Court, a weapon is
only covered by the Second Amendment if it might contribute to the
efficiency of a well-regulated militia. And the Court could not take
judicial notice of militia uses for sawed-off shotguns. The case was
remanded for trial (at which the defendants could have offered
evidence that sawed-off shotguns have utility in a militia context),
but the trial was never held, since the defendants disappeared during
the pendency of the government's appeal of the dismissal of their
indictment.

A minority line of nineteenth-century arms-rights analysis — adopted
in the twentieth century, for example, by the Oregon Supreme Court —
goes further. This analysis protects not just militia-type weapons,
but also weapons which are useful for personal defense, even if not
useful in a military context. Thus, the Oregon state constitution's
right to arms was held to protect possession of billy clubs and
switchblades — weapons which were pointedly excluded from protection
by the civilized warfare cases. State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395, 692
P.2d 610 (1984)(switchblades); State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255 (1981)
(billy clubs).

With the civilized-warfare test as the constitutional minimum, efforts
to ban machine guns or ordinary guns that look like machine guns
(so-called "assault weapons") appear constitutionally dubious. These
rifles are selected for prohibition because gun-control lobbies claim
that the rifles are "weapons of war." This claim, if true, amounts to
an admission that the rifles lie at the core of the Second Amendment.

Today, once people understand that "assault weapons" are firearms that
are cosmetically threatening but functionally indistinguishable from
other long guns, they are willing to accord these arms a place within
the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns, in contrast, really are
functionally different. Machine guns are rarely used in crime; and
lawfully possessed machine guns, which must be registered with the
federal government, are essentially absent from the world of gun
crime. Nevertheless, even many people who consider themselves strong
Second Amendment supporters cannot bear the thought of a
constitutional right to own machine guns.

Attorney Stephen Halbrook, suggests that, "artillery pieces, tanks,
nuclear devices and other heavy ordinances are not constitutionally
protected" arms, nor are "grenades, bombs, bazookas and other devices
… which have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." (Steven
Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of
the Second Amendment, 49 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. at 153 (1986).)

But the Halbrook test sidesteps the fact that militia uses, not just
personal-defense uses, are part of the core of the Second Amendment.
Moreover, the Halbrook test could allow governments to ban new types
of guns or weapons, since those weapons, being new, "have never been
commonly possessed for self-defense." The test could allow Second
Amendment technology to be frozen, as if the government claimed that
new communications devices are unprotected by the First Amendment
because they have never (heretofore) been commonly used for speech.

Just as the civilized-warfare test protects firearms that many persons
want excluded from the Second Amendment, the test also excludes
firearms that many persons want to be included. The civilized-warfare
cases protected large handguns, but in some applications excluded
small, highly concealable handguns. This would suggest that modern
bans on small, inexpensive handguns might not violate the Second
Amendment. On the other hand, small handguns such as the Colt .25
pistol were used by the United States military during the Second World
War. (See Charles W. Pate, "Researching the Martial .25 Colt Pistol,"
Man at Arms, Jan./Feb. 1995, 20-29.) (Of course, anyone using the
civilized-warfare test to make such an argument must also accept the
flip side of the civilized-warfare coin: "Assault weapon" prohibition
is plainly unconstitutional.)

The nineteenth-century minority theory, however, would recognize
small, relatively inexpensive handguns as highly suitable for personal
defense, and accord them Second Amendment protection regardless of
their militia utility. Twentieth-century constitutional law reflects a
special concern for problems of minorities and the poor that was not
present in nineteenth-century law. Since a small handgun may be the
only effective means of protection that is affordable to a poor
person, and since the poor and minorities tend to receive inferior
police protection, modern equal-protection analysis might find some
problems with banning inexpensive guns, even if one sets aside the
Second Amendment. (Note, Markus T. Funk, The Melting Point
Case-in-Point, 85 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOL. 764 (1995).)

But under the main nineteenth-century line of cases, opponents of
banning small handguns must overcome the presumption in those cases
that small handguns are not suitable militia weapons; perhaps the
frequent and successful use of small handguns in twentieth-century
partisan warfare against the Nazis and other oppressive regimes offers
one potential line of argument.

Twenty-first century jurisprudence might update the civilized-warfare
test by changing the focus from the military to the police. The modern
American police, especially at the federal level, resemble in many
regards the standing army that so concerned the founders. While the
American army is geared toward overseas warfare, the police are
oriented toward the type of internal-order functions (e.g.,
suppression of riots), which were among traditional militia duties.
Accordingly, the twenty-first century question, "What are suitable
militia-type arms?" might be answered, "Arms that are typical of, or
suitable for, police duty." By the modernized test, high-quality
handguns (both revolvers and semiautomatics) would lie at the core.
Smaller, less expensive handguns (frequently carried by police
officers as back-up weapons, often in ankle holsters) would also pass
the test easily. Ordinary shotguns and rifles (often carried in patrol
cars) would also be protected. Machine guns and other weapons of war
are not currently ordinary police equipment, although they are
becoming common in special attack units.

Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the
English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which
is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other
American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows:

"Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body
.... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and
belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary."

Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the
distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive"
weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although
they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is
attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes
really is a good offense.

Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms"
also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious
constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of
bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government.


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



"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:18:56 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:10:49 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

The constitution states citizens have a right to bear arms, but does
not
state that they have a right to the same arms the government has.

Yes it does.

Your claim..point out exactly where you think the right to same arms
as the military is invalid.

Then Ill rip it to shreds with citations.

Double dog dare you.

Gunner


Now, you may have citations to support your contention, but that
does
not change the fact that the Constitution states only that one has
the
right to bear arms, not particular arms.

John Mullen
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel060701.shtml

The dominant line of nineteenth-century interpretation protected
ownership only of weapons suitable for "civilized warfare." This
standard was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1939 United
States v. Miller case. There, the Court allowed defendants who never
claimed to be part of any militia (they were bootleggers) to raise a
Second Amendment claim. But the Supreme Court rejected the trial
court's determination that a federal law requiring the registration
and taxation of sawed-off shotguns was facially invalid as a violation
of the Second Amendment. Rather, said the Miller Court, a weapon is
only covered by the Second Amendment if it might contribute to the
efficiency of a well-regulated militia. And the Court could not take
judicial notice of militia uses for sawed-off shotguns. The case was
remanded for trial (at which the defendants could have offered
evidence that sawed-off shotguns have utility in a militia context),
but the trial was never held, since the defendants disappeared during
the pendency of the government's appeal of the dismissal of their
indictment.

A minority line of nineteenth-century arms-rights analysis — adopted
in the twentieth century, for example, by the Oregon Supreme Court —
goes further. This analysis protects not just militia-type weapons,
but also weapons which are useful for personal defense, even if not
useful in a military context. Thus, the Oregon state constitution's
right to arms was held to protect possession of billy clubs and
switchblades — weapons which were pointedly excluded from protection
by the civilized warfare cases. State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395, 692
P.2d 610 (1984)(switchblades); State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255 (1981)
(billy clubs).

With the civilized-warfare test as the constitutional minimum, efforts
to ban machine guns or ordinary guns that look like machine guns
(so-called "assault weapons") appear constitutionally dubious. These
rifles are selected for prohibition because gun-control lobbies claim
that the rifles are "weapons of war." This claim, if true, amounts to
an admission that the rifles lie at the core of the Second Amendment.

Today, once people understand that "assault weapons" are firearms that
are cosmetically threatening but functionally indistinguishable from
other long guns, they are willing to accord these arms a place within
the right to keep and bear arms. Machine guns, in contrast, really are
functionally different. Machine guns are rarely used in crime; and
lawfully possessed machine guns, which must be registered with the
federal government, are essentially absent from the world of gun
crime. Nevertheless, even many people who consider themselves strong
Second Amendment supporters cannot bear the thought of a
constitutional right to own machine guns.

Attorney Stephen Halbrook, suggests that, "artillery pieces, tanks,
nuclear devices and other heavy ordinances are not constitutionally
protected" arms, nor are "grenades, bombs, bazookas and other devices
… which have never been commonly possessed for self-defense." (Steven
Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of
the Second Amendment, 49 L. & CONTEMP. PROB. at 153 (1986).)

But the Halbrook test sidesteps the fact that militia uses, not just
personal-defense uses, are part of the core of the Second Amendment.
Moreover, the Halbrook test could allow governments to ban new types
of guns or weapons, since those weapons, being new, "have never been
commonly possessed for self-defense." The test could allow Second
Amendment technology to be frozen, as if the government claimed that
new communications devices are unprotected by the First Amendment
because they have never (heretofore) been commonly used for speech.

Just as the civilized-warfare test protects firearms that many persons
want excluded from the Second Amendment, the test also excludes
firearms that many persons want to be included. The civilized-warfare
cases protected large handguns, but in some applications excluded
small, highly concealable handguns. This would suggest that modern
bans on small, inexpensive handguns might not violate the Second
Amendment. On the other hand, small handguns such as the Colt .25
pistol were used by the United States military during the Second World
War. (See Charles W. Pate, "Researching the Martial .25 Colt Pistol,"
Man at Arms, Jan./Feb. 1995, 20-29.) (Of course, anyone using the
civilized-warfare test to make such an argument must also accept the
flip side of the civilized-warfare coin: "Assault weapon" prohibition
is plainly unconstitutional.)

The nineteenth-century minority theory, however, would recognize
small, relatively inexpensive handguns as highly suitable for personal
defense, and accord them Second Amendment protection regardless of
their militia utility. Twentieth-century constitutional law reflects a
special concern for problems of minorities and the poor that was not
present in nineteenth-century law. Since a small handgun may be the
only effective means of protection that is affordable to a poor
person, and since the poor and minorities tend to receive inferior
police protection, modern equal-protection analysis might find some
problems with banning inexpensive guns, even if one sets aside the
Second Amendment. (Note, Markus T. Funk, The Melting Point
Case-in-Point, 85 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOL. 764 (1995).)

But under the main nineteenth-century line of cases, opponents of
banning small handguns must overcome the presumption in those cases
that small handguns are not suitable militia weapons; perhaps the
frequent and successful use of small handguns in twentieth-century
partisan warfare against the Nazis and other oppressive regimes offers
one potential line of argument.

Twenty-first century jurisprudence might update the civilized-warfare
test by changing the focus from the military to the police. The modern
American police, especially at the federal level, resemble in many
regards the standing army that so concerned the founders. While the
American army is geared toward overseas warfare, the police are
oriented toward the type of internal-order functions (e.g.,
suppression of riots), which were among traditional militia duties.
Accordingly, the twenty-first century question, "What are suitable
militia-type arms?" might be answered, "Arms that are typical of, or
suitable for, police duty." By the modernized test, high-quality
handguns (both revolvers and semiautomatics) would lie at the core.
Smaller, less expensive handguns (frequently carried by police
officers as back-up weapons, often in ankle holsters) would also pass
the test easily. Ordinary shotguns and rifles (often carried in patrol
cars) would also be protected. Machine guns and other weapons of war
are not currently ordinary police equipment, although they are
becoming common in special attack units.

Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the
English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which
is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other
American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows:

"Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body
.... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and
belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary."

Webster's definition offers two useful insights. First, the
distinction sometimes drawn between "offensive" and "defensive"
weapons is of little value. All weapons are made for offense, although
they may used for defensive purposes (i.e. shooting someone who is
attempting to perpetrate a murder), since the best defense sometimes
really is a good offense.

Second, Webster reminds us that "arms" are not just weapons. "Arms"
also include defensive armor. This suggests very serious
constitutional problems with proposals to outlaw possession of
bullet-resistant body armor by persons outside the government.


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



"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--