roncachamp
Final Approach
But the most telling document is a letter from John Adams (who makes a fabulous beer) to James Warren:
That's Sam Adams, not John, they were second cousins.
But the most telling document is a letter from John Adams (who makes a fabulous beer) to James Warren:
The key word is "Capable". If the weapon cannot chamber lethal ammunition, it doesn't meet my definition of being able to project lethal levels of force. If it can, it is, no matter what's shoved into the barrel.The existence of non-lethal or less-than-lethal rounds available for standard firearms, pretty much kills that statement.
You saying a shotgun suddenly isn't a shotgun when a bean-bag round is loaded in it?
Couldn't show a receipt on the way out.By the way, I take it that we didn't want to keep Canada?
Oh, yea. Well John must have sold the business to Sam.
Way to even further ruin the joke that I ruined sufficiently on my own. :wink2:Samuel Adams was in the malt business, he was not a brewer.
Way to even further ruin the joke that I ruined sufficiently on my own. :wink2:
Anyway, I'm off to Miller Park to look into some of that malt stuff. Maybe some hopps too.
Yeah, the founders were no fans of a standing army. They made specific provisions in the constitution for a navy, and specifically excluded an army. The plan was for the states, and the citizens to make up the 'citizen-soldiers' when needed to defend the nation, and not to have an army on call. They saw what Sulla did in Rome and absolutely wanted to avoid an Imperium at all costs.
Silvaire, maybe we should more severely regulate or ban small airplanes, huh? They are obviously the problem, not the pilots.
I'm not advocating the banning of anything, I'm just observing the bizarre fixation on firearms that many Americans seem to have. Especially the gussied up, plastic adorned wanna-be assault type weapons. Unlike small airplanes there really doesn't appear to any real purpose for them. For home defense I'd rather have a good ol' 12 ga pump action cause I really don't have any plans to snipe anybody.
I'm not advocating the banning of anything, I'm just observing the bizarre fixation on firearms that many Americans seem to have. Especially the gussied up, plastic adorned wanna-be assault type weapons. Unlike small airplanes there really doesn't appear to any real purpose for them. For home defense I'd rather have a good ol' 12 ga pump action cause I really don't have any plans to snipe anybody.
FWIW, you and two buddies aren't a militia. The NRA says things like that, but the courts have rules many times for over two hundred years that it ain't so. The militia in question is the state right to raise an army.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
I don't have an AR15 style. My distance choice is from Russia with love and is chambered for 7.62x54R.
Interesting insight. I see "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbons was published at the same time as the American Revolution. I know the book had a widespread effect, but never realized it was simultaneous with the Revolution until I looked it up after reading your post. I'm aware of the "Society of Cincinnati" that many American officers joined after the war; really ties in with the Roman-inspired decision-making.
While the Constitution allowed for a Navy, it was not all beer and skittles. The Navy had a rough time getting started, with frigate construction started and stopped. The war with France put a bit more urgency on it, but many of the Captains were political appointees, mostly older retreads from the Revolution. Some still had it, most didn't.
Jefferson was initially anti-Navy, but finally decided he needed one to resist the various Barbary Pirates. Good there, but he afterward he declared that the US didn't NEED a Navy, and mothballed all the ships. all he left operational were little one-gun gunboats for harbor patrol.
But then, since he'd banned US merchant ships from engaging in international trade, there wasn't much call for a blue-water fleet. Those officers and seamen in the Navy spent their time enforcing the hated embargo.
What do you expect from a Democrat? Or a Republican? (Jefferson belonged to the "Democratic Republican Party." I kid you not.)
There's a guy who comes around occasionally giving lectures as "A Night with Thomas Jefferson." I've got a reproduction US Navy Captain's uniform from that period, and I've been tempted to show up and give him hell.
Ron Wanttaja
Like Diet Coke and Mentos, probably....I have one question with your above post:
Beer and skittles? Do they go well together ?
Like Diet Coke and Mentos, probably....
A REAL good combination: Champagne and Keebler Fudge Stripes (original). Yum!
Ron Wanttaja
Who the hell needs a firearm at Oshkosh? You have to be kidding.....
The PC nonsense is sad though, as is much of EAA these days.
Nope. I say that guns are designed for the projection of lethal force. How that lethal force is used is up to the operator. The gun is neutral. But unless it is *capable* of projecting that lethal force, it is not really considered a gun.
Nope, never made a moral judgement about killing. I'm an omnivore with a preference for beef. Without killing, dinnertime would be less enjoyable.
As an ex-military officer and amateur military historian, I understand that killing human beings in sometimes necessary. So no moral judgement there, either.
Nope. I say that guns are designed for the projection of lethal force. How that lethal force is used is up to the operator. The gun is neutral. But unless it is *capable* of projecting that lethal force, it is not really considered a gun.
I have about 15 hand guns in my bedroom closet alone that serve no purpose. I own the because I want them (and that's all the explanation anyone should need). And if I'm lucky, they'll continue to serve no purpose.
You (and everyone else) should really go read District of Columbia v Heller.
There's a guy who comes around occasionally giving lectures as "A Night with Thomas Jefferson." I've got a reproduction US Navy Captain's uniform from that period, and I've been tempted to show up and give him hell.
Ron Wanttaja
I'm not advocating the banning of anything, I'm just observing the bizarre fixation on firearms that many Americans seem to have. Especially the gussied up, plastic adorned wanna-be assault type weapons. Unlike small airplanes there really doesn't appear to any real purpose for them. For home defense I'd rather have a good ol' 12 ga pump action cause I really don't have any plans to snipe anybody.
I have about 15 hand guns in my bedroom closet alone that serve no purpose. I own the because I want them (and that's all the explanation anyone should need). And if I'm lucky, they'll continue to serve no purpose.
I think if you combine adequate quantities of the above with the vintage Navy uniform prior to participation in the Jefferson lecture, you'll generate plenty of newsworthy commentary.
Well, you'd think THIS would put the fear of Madison into him, wouldn't you?Let me know when you are doing that. I just might make the drive up to watch.rwanttaja said:There's a guy who comes around occasionally giving lectures as "A Night with Thomas Jefferson." I've got a reproduction US Navy Captain's uniform from that period, and I've been tempted to show up and give him hell.
Indeed. There's no Amendment in the Bill of Rights that protects the rights of citizens to own draft animals, farm implements, musical instruments, or fancy-schmancy breeches like mine in the picture above. The Second Amendment is the *only* one that refers to a specific personal possession. The First Amendment lumps a number of rights into one sentence (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition), but the Second Amendment only has one subjecti. It's obvious that it was an important issue to the Founding Fathers, and shouldn't be casually diddled with today.Bill of Rights, not the bill of needs. I have what I have because I want them and I enjoy shooting them. No further justification needed.BartMC said:I have about 15 hand guns in my bedroom closet alone that serve no purpose. I own the because I want them (and that's all the explanation anyone should need). And if I'm lucky, they'll continue to serve no purpose.
Who the hell needs to explain why the need a firearm ANYWHERE?
The PC nonsense is sad.
It is clear that you are pointless. Many guns do not project lethal force. A Very Pistol is a simple example. Perhaps someday you'll climb down off your soapbox. Perhaps not.
I've got a bicorne, do I get 66% credit?Show of hands... how many of you guys own a tri-cornered hat?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/very pistol
See any mention of the word 'gun'.....Talk about soap boxes....or simple.....
While rolling your eyes perhaps you could be bothered to look up "pistol." Then again, perhaps you can't be.
Nope.
Figured as much. No point in bothering you with facts.
Weak argument, I'm afraid...all those other objects have uses that do not involve violence. The only rational reason to carry a firearm is to have it available to use against a hostile creature. Unless you belong to a gun club that gets REALLY creative with their pop-up targets....
Ron Wanttaja
So, defending your own life isn't a rational reason to carry a firearm?
This is from there EAA Forums:
Why I won't be back to Oshkosh
I have learned that EAA has posted it's museum "no weapons".
Besides opening themselves up to lawsuits by posting if something happens (act 35 gives those who DON'T post immunity from such lawsuits), it is an insult to the law abiding citizens of Wisconsin.
They can claim all sorts of things, probably all of them have the word "safety" in there.
The fact is, I went through training, a background check, paid a $50 fee. Why they think criminals will go through all this, or even obey the sign, is beyond me.
I know that airventure rules have said for years no weapons on premises, but with the passing of act 35, this rule opens them up to all kinds of liability, and presumes criminality on the part of members and the public.
Your thoughts????
I still think property
owners should be within their rights to prohibit it on their own property.
Again I agree. It's the same risk management we use when we fly. As PIC, you have to decide if an area is, or isn't too risky to fly into. If Air Venture is just a great big sanctuary for criminals to commit robbery and murder with impunity, maybe one shouldn't go.CCW holders just have to decide if it's important enough to them not to go there..
So, defending your own life isn't a rational reason to carry a firearm?