Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Young hunter who killed hiker gets 30 days

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    You probably recall there was much discussion about this case on here when it happened. The results are in.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31860742...me_and_courts/



    MOUNT VERNON, Washington - A teenage hunter who shot and killed a hiker he mistook for a bear has been sentenced to 30 days in juvenile detention and 120 hours of community service.

    Tyler J. Kales, then 14, was hunting with his older brother in August when he shot 54-year-old Pamela Almli of Oso, who was trekking on the popular Sauk mountain hiking trail north of Seattle.

    Kales, who has since turned 15, apologized to the victim's family at Friday's sentencing and said he hoped they could forgive him.


    The victim's sister, Gail Blacker, told him that "in one second you destroyed everything."
    Kales, of Concrete, was convicted last month of second-degree manslaughter with a firearm.

    Skagit County Superior Court Judge Susan Cook also sentenced him to a year of probation and said his community service must include four hours of hunting safety education.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    I missed the discussion the first time around so I think I'll throw in...



    "Mandatory trainings violates my rights!!!!1!!"

    "Age requirements are arbitrary and violate my rights!!!!!!!!"

    :quirky



    And how the hell do you mistake a person for a bear, at any distance, at any age?

  3. #3
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Wait a second there, they're talking about hunter safety, not gun training. There is nothing in the constitution specifically about hunting.

    Though one could stretch something and get it in there. But it is not an enumerated right.

    So hunters safety training is not a violation of our rights.

    And really, I don't believe hunters safety really makes anyone much safer.

    This guys just a little slow I think.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    Once more, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. Hunting is a potentially dangerous activity often, as in this case, carried out on public land and utilizing a public resource (the game). The government has every right to institute age limits, and require training and safety equipment. A hunters safety card is a reasonably priced permit to use a public resource just like a drivers license.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    I forgot, guns are suddenly more dangerous when hunting. :quirky

    If the kid mistakes old ladies for bears during a non-threatening hunt scenario,then I can't even imaginehow (in)accurate his split-secondself-defense thought process would be.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    " I absolutely refuse to gut and clean the BG's carcuse for any reason . "

    Quentin Taratino

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    And how the hell do you mistake a person for a bear, at any distance, at any age?
    The term used around here is a "brush shot". It's a terrible idea and violates the know your target rule of gun safety. The term seems to have developed when folks shoot at the brush that is moving thinking it is the animal they are after. So you never technically "mistake" the victim for the animal. It's worse, you fire at an unknown target into brush you cannot see. That seems to be the predominate way these things happen.

    Also, some folks will investigate the movement with a scoped rifle. Which has you pointing a loaded rifle at an unknown target.

    When I was around 15 I had a guy walkeddown a draw where I was hunting. I had the gun up, pointed in his direction, waiting for something to show itself. I never saw the blaze orange vest till he stepped out of the rhododendron thicket. He never saw me, but it scared me something serious. Valuable lesson learned there. You have to be extra careful on public land, especially multi use areas.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    I forgot, guns are suddenly more dangerous when hunting. :quirky

    If the kid mistakes old ladies for bears during a non-threatening hunt scenario,then I can't even imaginehow (in)accurate his split-secondself-defense thought process would be .
    . . .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpsf-EbyBhI

  9. #9
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Yes, hunting is a much more dangerous activity than going about your daily life armed.

    Usually, when hunting you have a loaded rifle in your hands, while walking through rough terrain, looking to actively kill an elusive animal, while others you don't know do the same thing.

    And once again, the second ammendment is not about hunting.

    And yes, the kid needs to go through some training. We all are proponents of training, just not mandatory training.

    The kid has some bad judgement.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    And once again, the second ammendment is not about hunting.
    But it is about the right to bear arms and that includes while you are hunting, or did I read your post incorrectly.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    The right to bear arms does not include the right to shoot innocent people or animals on public land

    It says right there in the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms is for the keeping of a citizen-militia. Thus the 2nd amendment protects your right to have arms and do exercises that ensure your ability to fight in a militia against whoever threatens the people.

    Banning shooting ranges would not be allowed. Banning 'assault weapons' or pistols would not be allowed. Banning carry of military firearms in any area, including forests and such, would not be allowed.

    Banning hunting on public lands would be allowed. Banning guns designed solely for hunting which have no military purpose would be allowed.

    Just my take on the 2a

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    thx997303 wrote:
    And yes, the kid needs to go through some training. We all are proponents of training, just not mandatory training.

    I support laws too, just not when they're requirements... or when I have to follow them... or when I don't like them... or...

    So when I say "support," I guess what I really mean is that I just hope Joe Moron will be responsible and decide to do it himself. Now that's misplaced trust if I've ever seen it.

    There's a reason things are made mandatory, so stuff like this happens less often.



    Loaded rifle -loaded pistol... don't see the difference.

    Rough terrain with five people per square mile -tile floor of the mall with 5 people per square yard... different? Sure. One less dangerous than the other... yea, the mall has infinitely greater disaster potential.

    Scoping out animals in the bush with all the time in the world to plan, think, and act - nearly instinctual self-defence action requiring literally split-second decision making with impeccable judgment... different? Sure. One less dangerous than the other... yea, the hunting scenario is low stress, simple, and done in your own time and comfort zone, the self-defence scenario is anything but.


    Again, let's get a little common sense drilled in peoples' heads before giving them guns, and let's keep the guns away from kids becausethey can't tell a bear from a woman.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    GWRedDragon wrote:
    The right to bear arms does not include the right to shoot innocent people or animals on public land

    It says right there in the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms is for the keeping of a citizen-militia. Thus the 2nd amendment protects your right to have arms and do exercises that ensure your ability to fight in a militia against whoever threatens the people.

    Banning shooting ranges would not be allowed. Banning 'assault weapons' or pistols would not be allowed. Banning carry of military firearms in any area, including forests and such, would not be allowed.

    Banning hunting on public lands would be allowed. Banning guns designed solely for hunting which have no military purpose would be allowed.

    Just my take on the 2a
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -2nd Amendment, US Constitution

    While I do agree that the 2nd amendment was meant mainly to protect man portable arms of war rather than weapons designed for killing game I still have a problem restricting arms in any way. The second part says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not make any exemptions or exclusions nor does it mention any types of arms, just arms. So it must apply to all arms, not just those designed for military use and not just firearms either.

    The first part of the amendment is called a prefatory clause. It states why the amendment exists. It doesn't modify it to only include arms specifically designed for militia use. It simply states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This clause is used as justification for the people being armed, not as the measure of what qualifies as acceptable use. If it was that it only meant weapons used by militias then a lot of common firearms could be argued against (some shotguns, some pistols, .22 rifles, revolvers, etc).


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -2nd Amendment, US Constitution

    While I do agree that the 2nd amendment was meant mainly to protect man portable arms of war rather than weapons designed for killing game I still have a problem restricting arms in any way. The second part says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not make any exemptions or exclusions nor does it mention any types of arms, just arms. So it must apply to all arms, not just those designed for military use and not just firearms either.

    The first part of the amendment is called a prefatory clause. It states why the amendment exists. It doesn't modify it to only include arms specifically designed for militia use. It simply states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This clause is used as justification for the people being armed, not as the measure of what qualifies as acceptable use. If it was that it only meant weapons used by militias then a lot of common firearms could be argued against (some shotguns, some pistols, .22 rifles, revolvers, etc).
    Well, I think what 'arms' they were talking about does matter. Should a person be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? It has no bearing whatsoever on a militia, does it, and it poses a serious threat: someday the technology for such WMDs may be so trivial that even a lone crazy person would be able to easily recreate it. If we do not restrict such 'arms', at that point society is doomed.

    I think it is safe to say that such 'arms' were nowhere within the imagination of the people who ratified the 2nd amendment. So in translating what they were trying to say to modern technology, it helps to look at the purpose of the 2a in the first place: to allow the people the weapons needed to fight a war against tyranny, either from abroad or from home. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think the most logical place is at 'weapons suitable for normal infantry troop use', though I would be willing to entertain an alternate 'anything designed for combat other than WMD' theory as well.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    GWRedDragon wrote:
    Well, I think what 'arms' they were talking about does matter. Should a person be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? It has no bearing whatsoever on a militia, does it, and it poses a serious threat: someday the technology for such WMDs may be so trivial that even a lone crazy person would be able to easily recreate it. If we do not restrict such 'arms', at that point society is doomed.

    I think it is safe to say that such 'arms' were nowhere within the imagination of the people who ratified the 2nd amendment. So in translating what they were trying to say to modern technology, it helps to look at the purpose of the 2a in the first place: to allow the people the weapons needed to fight a war against tyranny, either from abroad or from home. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think the most logical place is at 'weapons suitable for normal infantry troop use', though I would be willing to entertain an alternate 'anything designed for combat other than WMD' theory as well.
    So we go from not for hunting to not including nukes? We shouldn't allow people to have nukes because they're too effective against the government but hunting rifles aren't allowed because they're not effective enough?

    It can be assumed that the word "arms" in the 2nd amendment refers to personal weapons, man portable.

    A nuclear weapon is an entirely different beast, you can't go to the hardware store and buy the parts and just make one. If that were true Iran would have had one a long time ago, as well as all the other crazies in the Middle East and Africa. As it is now only twenty some odd countries have the technology, knowledge, and funding to create nuclear weapons.

    One could argue against planes and and tanks too. Even though they are readily available to the public they still aren't everywhere. They cost way too much for anyone but collectors to have them.

  16. #16
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    GWRedDragon wrote:
    Well, I think what 'arms' they were talking about does matter. Should a person be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? It has no bearing whatsoever on a militia, does it, and it poses a serious threat: someday the technology for such WMDs may be so trivial that even a lone crazy person would be able to easily recreate it. If we do not restrict such 'arms', at that point society is doomed.

    I think it is safe to say that such 'arms' were nowhere within the imagination of the people who ratified the 2nd amendment. So in translating what they were trying to say to modern technology, it helps to look at the purpose of the 2a in the first place: to allow the people the weapons needed to fight a war against tyranny, either from abroad or from home. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think the most logical place is at 'weapons suitable for normal infantry troop use', though I would be willing to entertain an alternate 'anything designed for combat other than WMD' theory as well.
    What was the most powerful weapon available to the colonists at the time of the American Revolution?

    The Cannon was the weapon of mass destruction of the late 1700s. The militia had in fact buried a cannon at Concord specifically to resist the British troops.

    Thus by absolutely logical extension, the well-regulated militias should have Strykers with a M68A1E4 105 mm cannon, M2 or MK240 HMG or MMG respectively and MK19 40mm launchers. The well-regulated militias should also have M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks and M2/M3 Bradley Tracked Armored Fighting Vehicles. All of the variants of the HMMWV (including ones with TOW missiles) are necessary to the security of a free state as well.

    In fact, the only thing Congress has specific rights to that the states do not is the power to manage the Navy.

    Why did our founding fathers choose to have the Navy seperate from the states? Because it was capable of projecting power abroad and it was capable of fighting wars abroad. Since only Congress has the power to declare war, it makes sense that Congress would control the means of projecting power to foreign countries.

    Thus, by logical extension, the long range capabilities of the Air Force (especially long range bombers and air to air refueling tankers) are something I believe Congress should control. However, I believe fighter jets and short range aircraft, such as helicopters, are definitely within the militias rights to control as they only protect local areas and do not project armed might abroad in terms of foreign conflict. (At least not without the aid of aircraft carriers or air to air refueling tankers, which would both be controlled by Congress.) Long range nuclear weapons, such as ICBMs should logically be controlled by Congress.

    To make a long story short, a standing army is unconstitutional and all of the weapons employed by the US Army should fall under the control of each individual states well-regulated militias. Furthermore, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear such arms should not be infringed.

    Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of M203 40mm grenade launchers. Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of RPGs, Mah-Deuce, M240s in turrets on top of vehicles, etc. It's constitutional.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I don't know why any non-hunterwould want to go trapesing around in the woods during hunting season anyway. I sure as hell don't do it. Too much of a chance of a hunter taking a shot he shouldn't.

    I'd like to know how one mistakes a hiker for a bear too. Obviously, this kid didn't get a good look at his target before he pulled the trigger.

    When I was a kid in school, the game warden came out to the school and conducted hunter safety classes. They always stressed to "be sure of your target" and never shoot into a bush. They even had a film to demonstrate how easy it would be to mistake another hunter, in or behind a bush or other foilage,for game.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    I don't know why any non-hunterwould want to go trapesing around in the woods during hunting season anyway. I sure as hell don't do it. Too much of a chance of a hunter taking a shot he shouldn't.
    Back before I knew anything about hunting I would go hiking during deer season in Pennsylvania completely ignorant that guys with rifles were in the area looking for something to shoot at.

    Once I found out I was way more careful, but the problem is that if you're a non-hunter you may not even be aware that hunting is going on at the moment.

    Then there is the annoyance of having to arrange outdoor activities around the schedules of hunting seasons, which is a pain.

    Unless the hunting grounds are made off-limits to non-hunters and posted as such hunters will have to deal with the hassle of having other people around and they will have to be sure of what they are shooting at.

    It would be nice if you could truly rely on hunters to not shoot at you, but that's not reassuring enough for me. Especially when the hunters you stumble across are angry that you've chased the game away.



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    What was the most powerful weapon available to the colonists at the time of the American Revolution?

    The Cannon was the weapon of mass destruction of the late 1700s. The militia had in fact buried a cannon at Concord specifically to resist the British troops.

    *snip*

    To make a long story short, a standing army is unconstitutional and all of the weapons employed by the US Army should fall under the control of each individual states well-regulated militias. Furthermore, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear such arms should not be infringed.

    Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of M203 40mm grenade launchers. Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of RPGs, Mah-Deuce, M240s in turrets on top of vehicles, etc. It's constitutional.
    This argument seems quite logical.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    GWRedDragon wrote:
    Well, I think what 'arms' they were talking about does matter. Should a person be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? It has no bearing whatsoever on a militia, does it, and it poses a serious threat: someday the technology for such WMDs may be so trivial that even a lone crazy person would be able to easily recreate it. If we do not restrict such 'arms', at that point society is doomed.

    I think it is safe to say that such 'arms' were nowhere within the imagination of the people who ratified the 2nd amendment. So in translating what they were trying to say to modern technology, it helps to look at the purpose of the 2a in the first place: to allow the people the weapons needed to fight a war against tyranny, either from abroad or from home. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think the most logical place is at 'weapons suitable for normal infantry troop use', though I would be willing to entertain an alternate 'anything designed for combat other than WMD' theory as well.
    What was the most powerful weapon available to the colonists at the time of the American Revolution?

    The Cannon was the weapon of mass destruction of the late 1700s. The militia had in fact buried a cannon at Concord specifically to resist the British troops.

    Thus by absolutely logical extension, the well-regulated militias should have Strykers with a M68A1E4 105 mm cannon, M2 or MK240 HMG or MMG respectively and MK19 40mm launchers. The well-regulated militias should also have M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks and M2/M3 Bradley Tracked Armored Fighting Vehicles. All of the variants of the HMMWV (including ones with TOW missiles) are necessary to the security of a free state as well.

    In fact, the only thing Congress has specific rights to that the states do not is the power to manage the Navy.

    Why did our founding fathers choose to have the Navy seperate from the states? Because it was capable of projecting power abroad and it was capable of fighting wars abroad. Since only Congress has the power to declare war, it makes sense that Congress would control the means of projecting power to foreign countries.

    Thus, by logical extension, the long range capabilities of the Air Force (especially long range bombers and air to air refueling tankers) are something I believe Congress should control. However, I believe fighter jets and short range aircraft, such as helicopters, are definitely within the militias rights to control as they only protect local areas and do not project armed might abroad in terms of foreign conflict. (At least not without the aid of aircraft carriers or air to air refueling tankers, which would both be controlled by Congress.) Long range nuclear weapons, such as ICBMs should logically be controlled by Congress.

    To make a long story short, a standing army is unconstitutional and all of the weapons employed by the US Army should fall under the control of each individual states well-regulated militias. Furthermore, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear such arms should not be infringed.

    Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of M203 40mm grenade launchers. Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of RPGs, Mah-Deuce, M240s in turrets on top of vehicles, etc. It's constitutional.

    Wow, that was pretty solid. Thumbs up to you, sir.


  21. #21
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Ugh, quoting and editing text on my phone is not easy.

    Never mind, Stylez you are no friend to the RKBA

    You support this "common sense gun control" which as we all know is gun bans.

    And yes, I made a grammatical error. And I don't care.

  22. #22
    Regular Member XD40coyote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    woman stuck in Maryland, ,
    Posts
    709

    Post imported post

    I thought hunter safety classes were mandatory in all states now? But even if they are not, or you can hunt your own private land w/out a lisc, common sense should dictate to anyone not retarded and over the age of 10. One common failure is the parents of the kid, did this kid's dad or some other close male role model not teach him to ID an animal before taking a shot?

    Next question, does the state in question require hunter's ed to get a hunting lisc? Sounds like he was hunting public land, so a lisc would be required. So was he poaching? I took hunters ed back in 2000 so I could get a hunting/trapping lisc to trap. The class was nearly all about gun safety, gun safety, and gun safety- including NOT shooting at shaking bushes or moving outlines. This kid is either mildly retarded and was poaching, or he had his Ipod on the whole hunters ed class and passed the class by cheating.

    I can see where some 75 year old man might do something stupid like this, since hunters ed wasn't required years ago and if he got a hunting lisc first in 1970 or something, he would be grandfathered in and not have to take hunters ed, but a 14 year old kid?

    BTW there are yahoos in my area who do stupid poacher things, like shoot across public roads, shoot across flat fields at night from their truck windows, or shoot livestock. The DNR officers seem to never be around to catch these bozos either. I am sure they catch some, such as using a "robodeer", but the vast majority of the time, DNR response time is an hour or more. Maybe landowners should be allowed to use deadly force when they see this crap happening.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    The kid that shot the woman broke what I considerthe number one safetyrule in hunting, "be sure of your target and beyond". The kid F'ed upand killed a person! He did not know it was a person, and pulled the trigger before verifying his target. He deserves whatever punishment he gets.

    Now did this lady knowshe was wandering around in the woods during an open hunting season? why didn't she have somearticle ofBlaze orange clothing on? it is common sense really, if your going to be out in the woods with people hunting game with rifles, Make sure you can be seen! it is not so you aren't mistaken as game, it is more so you can be seen in the background and do not blend in with the environment.

    Has anyone seen the picture of the guy that got shot in the back of his head with a broadhead tipped arrow? Him and his buddy were archery hunting, his buddy thought his friend was a deer due to his hair color, and shot him in the back of his head! Stupidity abounds in all walks of life! look at some of the people that have drivers licenses!

    The last time I went deer hunting with a rifle, I saw movement coming through the bushes and suspected it was a deer because it was a light brown color and had white on/in it too. As I was patiently waiting to see what it was. Out popsa women wearing a light brown suede jacket with a white collarand white knit hat!
    WTF? out in the woods dressing up the exact same color as a deer during hunting season?
    I walked over to her and asked ifshe knew it was an open deerhunting season. her reply was "Oh, I look nothing like a deer"

    I offeredher a blaze orange hat and vestto wear on her way back to whereshe parked and pointed out a very open direct route.She declined and statedshe wasgoing to finishher hike (wearingher deer colored outfit during gun-deer season) instead!
    I would compare that amount of ignorance to a skinny unarmed white guy walking downthe street at nighttime in the southside of Chicago nearhousing projects with $100 bills taped to your shirt yelling racial slurs.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Now did this lady knowshe was wandering around in the woods during an open hunting season? why didn't she have somearticle ofBlaze orange clothing on?
    Go back and read my earlier post.

    Like I said: if you have never had any interest in hunting, you may not even know that it is hunting season.

    You can complain all you want, but the responsibility lies with the hunter, not the ignorant hiker. The hunter is the one pointing guns at stuff.



  25. #25
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    GWRedDragon wrote:
    Well, I think what 'arms' they were talking about does matter. Should a person be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? It has no bearing whatsoever on a militia, does it, and it poses a serious threat: someday the technology for such WMDs may be so trivial that even a lone crazy person would be able to easily recreate it. If we do not restrict such 'arms', at that point society is doomed.

    I think it is safe to say that such 'arms' were nowhere within the imagination of the people who ratified the 2nd amendment. So in translating what they were trying to say to modern technology, it helps to look at the purpose of the 2a in the first place: to allow the people the weapons needed to fight a war against tyranny, either from abroad or from home. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think the most logical place is at 'weapons suitable for normal infantry troop use', though I would be willing to entertain an alternate 'anything designed for combat other than WMD' theory as well.
    What was the most powerful weapon available to the colonists at the time of the American Revolution?

    The Cannon was the weapon of mass destruction of the late 1700s. The militia had in fact buried a cannon at Concord specifically to resist the British troops.

    Thus by absolutely logical extension, the well-regulated militias should have Strykers with a M68A1E4 105 mm cannon, M2 or MK240 HMG or MMG respectively and MK19 40mm launchers. The well-regulated militias should also have M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks and M2/M3 Bradley Tracked Armored Fighting Vehicles. All of the variants of the HMMWV (including ones with TOW missiles) are necessary to the security of a free state as well.

    In fact, the only thing Congress has specific rights to that the states do not is the power to manage the Navy.

    Why did our founding fathers choose to have the Navy seperate from the states? Because it was capable of projecting power abroad and it was capable of fighting wars abroad. Since only Congress has the power to declare war, it makes sense that Congress would control the means of projecting power to foreign countries.

    Thus, by logical extension, the long range capabilities of the Air Force (especially long range bombers and air to air refueling tankers) are something I believe Congress should control. However, I believe fighter jets and short range aircraft, such as helicopters, are definitely within the militias rights to control as they only protect local areas and do not project armed might abroad in terms of foreign conflict. (At least not without the aid of aircraft carriers or air to air refueling tankers, which would both be controlled by Congress.) Long range nuclear weapons, such as ICBMs should logically be controlled by Congress.

    To make a long story short, a standing army is unconstitutional and all of the weapons employed by the US Army should fall under the control of each individual states well-regulated militias. Furthermore, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear such arms should not be infringed.

    Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of M203 40mm grenade launchers. Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of RPGs, Mah-Deuce, M240s in turrets on top of vehicles, etc. It's constitutional.
    +1000

    I could not agree more. Private citizens already do own tanks and fighter jets, but the ammo is illegal for them to buy. If you have a decent machine shop and some elite machinist skills, you can easily make an RPG.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •