People hunting.

Well, Yeah, Monty. Purdue is providing a transcript…are you suggesting they made it up?

So Monty…what happens if you admit you are in error? Your skin falls off? Your testicles shrivel up and cease to function? You develop some incurable disease? It must be something like that to make it so utterly impossible for you to say you didn’t know something.

Lemme clue ya: if you are never willing to admit you didn’t know something, you’ll never really know anything.


Stoidela

Don’t meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you’re crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.

Stoi, I threw that pointed jab in there to get your attention.
It has come to my attention that there are people on this board that completely disregard, or at best selectively disregard, any post by anyone with a dissenting opinion.

Note the word “opinion”, and not “fact”.
I haven’t had the chance to look up your cite; but considering that it came from Purdue’s Liberal Arts History Dept., I would venture a guess that its information might be a little…skewed?
Unless they cite the actual documents and their general availability to the internet browsing public, your cite might (not “does”, though :)) have the weight of opinion, not fact.

But, on the other hand, thanks for having the conviction to actually look up a cite and provide it for us; it shows the beginning of the ability to emotionally divest oneself from their position and approach it from a logical, debateable angle.
Remember, your words are your sole representative on this board; choose them with care.

Stoi, you did bring up one good point in responding to my post.
Those of us in the trenches do tend to try to develop a protective disassociation from our enemy. The classic "them and “us” mentality. Normal mentally well-adjusted people do not lightly take another person’s life; if anyone doubt’s that, go to your local Police Dept. and talk to a Dept. Psychologist about how cops react after taking a person’s life, even when deadly force was justified.

Fighter pilots and Tankers and like used to think that we were somewhat more fortunate than an Infantryman, in that we are destroying the enemy’s machines, and that we didn’t have to look upon the human results of our handiwork. We replaced a human enemy with their “machine”, and thereby de-humanized our human adversaries.
This false armor was shattered in Desert Storm; not only did we see the human results of war, first hand and in technicolor with surround sound that’d make George Lucas sick with envy, but worse, we smelled it as well.
CNN couldn’t even begin to touch what we saw and experienced.

War is a terrible necessity of the human condition; often brought about by leaders like Slobodan Milosivek, who are too far removed from the reality they invoke through aggressive, expansionist nationalistic policies.
Or in the case of people like Saddam Hussein, violent thugs who don’t bat an eye at sacrificing hundreds of thousands of people to achieve personal power and glory.
Someone, sooner or later, has to stand up to them. These people are just grown up versions of schoolyard bullies, applied to a national scale.
History has decided, for now at least, that it will be us.

So to try and bring us back around to the OP, yes the Machinegun is a strictly military weapon, and always has been.
It has one purpose: to “spew hot lead” at an alarming rate and kill the enemy faster than the enemy can replace those casualties, thereby destroying both the enemy’s ability and will to wage war.
But the machinegun has always been an “implement of war”; and not a weapon that would have been considered by our Founding Fathers, had it been around, the type of firearm that “the people” could “keep and bear”.

This is why I reject the notion that the Second Amendment is outdated and needs to be abolished as a social anachronism; we are more than capable, at all levels of society and government, of looking realistically at new types of firearms and ballistic technology, and arriving at informed and reasonable gun-control laws that allow people to keep and bear without jeopardizing public safety or compromising the Second Amendment

The BATF strictly regulates all fully automatic weapons, from sub-machimeguns like the Uzi through assault rifles like the M-16 family of weapons, with very stiff penalties for unlawfull possession, transfer, transportation, modification and import/export.
It costs an arm and a leg to obtain the ClassIII license to own, sell, and ship full-auto weponry, after rigorous and lengthy background checks.
Then the BATF regularly drops in, often unannounced, to inventory and check up on the licensed owners. That’s a lot of governmental oversight. There are very, very few individuals in America with ClassIII licenses for fully-automatic weaponry.
And despite misinformation to the contrary, The NRA believes that this is rightly so; that there is no Constitutional infringement in it being so.

But the semi-auto variants, and even the 5- or 10-shot civillian rifles shooting similar caliber bullets are not machineguns by the classifications of Law, precedent or practice.

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“And that’s The Straight Dope.”

Ex-Tank: Thank goodness we’re finally back on track! You are right about a Class III license to buy, sell, and trade NFA weapons, but ownership is granted to any citizen that can fulfull the obligations as set forth by federal law. Instead of repeating myself and invoking the wrath of the thread Gestapos (you know who you are), please look at the post I made at 02:29 P.M. on 06-02-99.

ExTank:

That’s cool…but for future reference, jabs and snipes are a a great way to lose my attention. I like to debate, not trash people and be trashed. (not that I’m saying you trashed me, but you know what I’m referring to.)

They aren’t just citing the actual documents, the complete documents are right there, in gray and black, beginning to end. My quote was straight from something called the Roberts Commission.

The header from the page reads as follows:

 PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

                            HEARINGS
                           BEFORE THE
               JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE INVESTIGATION
                    OF THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK

                   CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
                       SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS

                           FIRST SESSION

                            PURSUANT TO

                          S. Con. Res. 27

             A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN
              INVESTIGATION OF THE ATTACK ON PEARL
                 HARBOR ON DECEMBER 7, 1941, AND
                     EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
                          RELATING THERETO

                               PART 39

            REPORTS, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF ROBERTS
            COMMISSION, ARMY PEARL HARBOR BOARD, NAVY
            COURT OF INQUIRY, AND HEWITT INQUIRY, WITH
            ENDORSEMENTS

                   Printed for the use of the
 Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack

                          UNITED STATES
                    GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                        WASHINGTON : 1946

Looks like fact to me!

In my search for a cite, I was amused to see that the net is jam-packed with references to this, most of them web pages devoted to calling FDR a traitor and a maniac.

Which points to why, if the info WERE skewed, it would likely be skewed in the OPPOSITE direction, since FDR, the definitive bleeding-heart president, is portrayed as the bad guy in this mess.

Don’t confuse the term “Liberal Arts” with liberal politics. LA refers to things like English and History as opposed to Fine Arts like art and music.

Being the fan of words that I am, it is my habit to be careful with them. (Usually) Which is not to say that I care to shy away from strong positions that may piss people off, only that I make sure to say what I mean and mean what I say.

I dont’ doubt it for a moment! Which is my problem with the military. Not the US Military, EVERYBODYS. War is sick, twisted, cruel, nightmarish. Asking young men (any young men, from any country) to go and blow apart other young men for political reasons is, to my girly mind, just flat out perverse. I fully recognize that if very bad people are asking their young men to do it, we have no choice but to ask ours. But the whole thing just makes me crazy. War blows.


Stoidela

Don’t meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you’re crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.

Which is why we have internatinal laws such as The Geneva-Hague Convention, to try an minimize the cruelty and depravity of war and its leaders.

If you think War blows now, read up a bit on Military History and see how it used to be conducted (and still is, to some extent, despite international law):
mass executions of prisoners, looting and burning of cities, raping, torturing and mass executions of civillian non-combatants, and such stuff.

Sounds like Hussein, Khomeini and Milosivek, eh?

I guess, in the modern context (WWII and forward), most wars/conflicts/actions have at their foundation what some believe to be a moral imperitive.

Whether they are right are not is usually decided in hindsight, which we all know to be the only perfect science.

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“History is a harsh teacher, and an even harsher critic.”

Stoidela
Member posted 06-08-99 08:17 PM (however, the bolding is mine)

Now, Stoidela; do you deny that you have here accused the government of the United States as an accomplice to a mass murder and that you also stated a motive for that murder?

And it’s truly amusing that you’re equating Japan’s attack as part of Hitler’s serious evil.

This is just a portion of the bullshit you’ve posted in this thread. Retract it or admit you’re just posting bullshit.

Monty, you slay me! Your mad scramble to salvage something out of your ignorance is truly breathtaking.

Much as you wish it, I won’t be retracting something that I have provided such yummy backup for. The Army itself accepted the facts 53 years ago, and you won’t accept them even now.

As to the motive, I could post material backing all that up as well, but what’s the point? You’ve demonstrated pretty forcefull that I could introduce you to FDR’s ghost and have him tell you himself and you wouldn’t accept it. (Besides which, now that we know the facts, what motive would you assume there was? FDR wanted us in the war, and had been doing everything in his power to make it happen for 2 years prior to PH.)

Well, as usual, Monty, I did not do that. You are doing it.

But as long as you are doing it, the facts (they keep biting you on the ass, dont’ they, Monty? Them facts are a real bitch!) speak for themselves.

Ever heard of the Axis alliance formed by the Tripartite Pact? Have a looksee:

Now the exact equation you gave was yours, not mine. I never made such an equation. But as far as Japan being part of Hitler’s evil? You HAVE heard about WWII being a war between the Allies and the Axis powers, have you not??

Now, I’m really done with being your history teacher, ok? I would be perfectly happy if you showed any evidence of wanting to learn, but you don’t. You want to be right, and you aren’t.


Stoidela

Don’t meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you’re crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.

Okay, Teach; let’s see if I have this right:

(1) In your definition of a just and rightous war, the government of the United States allowed the mass murder of American citizens and the near destruction of the Pacific Fleet.

(2) In your definition of a just and rightous war, the government of the United States did not have all the facts as to the horrors Hitler and his cohorts were perpetrating on their own people.

(3) In your definition of a just and rightous war, the government of the United States, instead of using the “real reason” for getting involved in the war, just went ahead and allowed a mass murder, basically because it would get folks fired up in favour of the government.

(4) In your definition of a just and rightous war, the government of the United States imprisoned American citizens (whom you so nicelely referred to with a racial slur most thinking people this day and age don’t use) with no charge, no trial, and no regard for the document which directs that government.

(5) You’re not interested in historical portrayals of events but use comical fiction (yes, I recall Private Benjamin) as a source for what military life is.

Does that about sum it up? You can’t be done doing something until you’ve begun it.

And FYI, I perused documents concerning the war on the National Archives page. But as that’s part of the government, I doubt seriously you’ll believe a word of it.

You know, Monty, you keeping hacking away at that hole you’re in and you’re going to find yourself in China.

I can’t even imagine what it is at this point you are hoping to accomplish.

So allow ME to sum it up for you, and then we are done:

Anyone interested (at this point I can’t imagine who that might be) can see for themselves exactly what I’ve said, since you’ve forced me to say it 8 different ways so far. I’ve backed up my assertions of fact with pretty excellent proof which you have in no minuscule way even attempted to refute. And it’s all right here, Monty, where anyone can read it.

I have repeatedly pointed out to you exactly how and when (egregiously and constantly, as it happens) you have misstated and distorted my actual words and my meaning, in ever more desperate attempts to make yourself look smart, and in the course of doing so actually acheiving the exact opposite.

I’ve also stated and restated my opinions and feelings about all of the topics we’ve covered, in many different ways, clarifying them in detail. Again, anyone can read it all right here for themselves.

Because you evidently find it absolutely intolerable to the point of madness to back down, no matter how obvious it is you have nothing left to fight with, you continue to just make stuff up.

And you have now been reduced to nearly incoherent babbling.

So, as much as I try to avoid, in a debate forum, telling people what they are as opposed to what their ideas are, you have backed me into a wall and forced my hand, mostly because you don’t really have any ideas: you are simply pathetic, Monty. And to continue this with you would constitute cruel and unusual punishment on my part.

So I’m not gonna.


Stoidela

Don’t meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you’re crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.

Make stuff up? That’s rich. Here’s a quick rundown for you, Stoi.

Stoi on some of her fellow humans:

You are clearly telling a lie here. You do not like what the military does. Then you say you respect the choice of people who choose to serve in the military.

Stoi on tolerance:

There are only two interpretations of this utterance: (1) Either you are a racist yourself, or (2) You think those in the military are racists. It doesn’t matter at all which is true–if (1), you’re a bigot; if (2), you’re a bigot. That’s called Logical Conclusion. Look it up.

Stoi on history (part I):

[quote]
Pardon? Because we didn’t enter it immediately, it wasn’t just? America is the ultimate arbiter of just and righteous war? (And though I do not have the details ready to give you, the fact of the matter is that we knew and could have prevented Japan’s attack. We didn’t to give us an excuse and to fire up the citizenry to enlist and support the war.)**

This clearly shows that you STATED that your inane view of the reason the attack on Pearl Harbor actually happened is that you view it a fact that the United States government actually wanted Americans to be killed; thus being an accomplice to mass murder.

Stoi on history (part IIa):

[quote]
Ever heard of the Axis alliance formed by the Tripartite Pact?

[quote]

(& part IIb)

Now this is interesting. For some odd reason you are declaring that Japan’s unprovoked military action against the United States was a reason for the United States to go and save folks from Hitler. But what you’ve quoted was basically a defense agreement which said that Germany and Italy would come to Japan’s aid if another country attacked Japan.

When I summed it up for you, I listed the points you were arguing. Yet, your answer follows:

Stoi shows her debating skill when confronted with fact:

Now, if you’d followed that last line with “troll any more” you might’ve gained a few fans.

You said something “8 different ways” and, yet, all 8 ways were the same bigoted preconceived lies about history and the military. And you’re pissed that someone has the guts to say to you, “Hey! The military back in 1941 might’ve been incompetent but where do you come off saying the US was out to kill Americans in Hawaii?!”

You want to debate? Fine, I’m all for debate. You backpedalled immediately after I called you on the accusation of mass murder (Oh, you don’t recall saying “the fact of the matter is that we knew and could have prevented Japan’s attack. We didn’t to give us an excuse and to fire up the citizenry to enlist and support the war.)?”). Then you decided that it was only an opinion. Then you’ve decided that it was a fact again.

Tell you what: I’m all for debate. Advance a supposition AS SUCH and we’ll discuss it. Advance a false accusation with minimal support, and we’ll laugh at it.

BTW, when I’m wrong, I admit it and it doesn’t even hurt. In this case, however, I’m not wrong. And there’s no way you saying that I am when I quoted your words just shows you for the troll you are.

Drat! I left a few words out of that last paragraph. It should be as follows:

BTW, when I’m wrong, I admit it and it doesn’t even hurt. In this case, however, I’m not wrong. And there’s no way you saying that I am will make it so when I quoted your words. And when I quoted you, your ricocheting around just showed you for the troll you are.

(To the rest of the board’s readers & lurkers: sorry about leaving the quote separation line out in the previous posting; however, it’s pretty clear where it should be.)

Well as much as we hate to admit it, the founding fathers included the 2nd Ammendment knowing full well the consequences. All though I have quite a few gripes with our government, I don’t think that any current policy warrants a rebelion, you have to admit, there’s a clear and definite reason that the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution of the United States.

Howdy all,
I didnt know that there was so many people who disliked hunting and/or guns. Somthing for all yall gun hating types to consider would be that you would still under the rule of England if it wasnt for guns. We would probably be speaking German or Jappaniese if it wasnt for guns.
Hunting inst just about killing animals…Hunters enjoy spending time in the wild, tracking game, putting there witts aginst that of a wild animal, and killing it with as little pain as possible. Sure, you get a big adrelalin rush from killing a buck, any hunter can tell you that. but there have been plenty of hunters who have passed up the oppotunity of killing an animal, so that someone younger, or less experenced could have the chance—hunting is somthing that brings people together, makes lifelong freinds.

ps. about the semi autos and machine guns—the speed limit is 55 yet everyone wants a sports car that goes 120…its the same thing…

Justin


“In wildness is the preservation of the world, so seek the wolf inside thyself”

I don’t want a sports car that goes 120.


Stoidela

Don’t meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you’re crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.

I can’t help but wonder… If Americans had spent all that spare change on Education instead of Firearms… would Justin have learned to spell?

Sorry about the spelling, It was never one of my strong points-------

Still, I think its better for kids to learn how to hunt than it is for them to be on the streets doing drugs, comiting crimes, and the like.


“In wildness is the preservation of the world, so seek the wolf inside thyself”

“There is nothing to fear but fear itself”, though actions can always kill…


Indeed, the forefathers placed protections where they percieved a threat. Thus, to block hugonaught (aristocratic) domination, and to prevent forceful subjucation of a small but stubborn populace, they bestowed the gift of small arms, to give the masses teath to rend, and they fanned the flames of indipendence.
And too well they worked…

There is no more a threat such as they percieved. They vanquished their enemies too well, for now we face unknown chalenges, and unknown fears.
Yet, as Big Brother was mainly a face to comfort, now we seek a face to fear.

We place frightening images in our own heads, violent criminals, a rampant and rapacious populace of lesser folk, come to take what’s ours. Fear them!
Or not.
Find another way. Perhaps you fear those others who fear. You fear the gun collecters themselves, or the milita. (Which was also supported by the forefathers, --Washinton and Jefferson, come to mind, though I could be wrong…)
And even so, though our best attempt is made, all we fight is shadows. For government learned too.

The tyrants no longer come with brigands to steal our goods. They come with words, and numbness. Apathy. They steal our lives, and we thank them for it.
Or not…

And so it has been writen: Fight fire with fire. Arm yourself with words and honour, trust yourself and others – as much as is desirved.
Know your own limits, and take a little time. Victory is not insured until the battle is fought.
And this works both ways…

C3:

How do you know?Maybe we have the right to bear “guns invented before 1800”. How would they guess what “arms” were to develop later?

Allan and the rest of them spelled so many words so badly (“teath”) that I thought for sure they must be quoting some historical figure. As there was, however, no credit given for the quote, I am compelled to beg for clarification of one minor detail:

“hugonaught (aristocratic)”

Should this maybe be “Huguenot (protestant)”?

If we have the right to bear arms in order to go after the protestants, I’d like to talk to my Senator about croakin’ them darned catholics who gave me so much trouble in the eighth grade…

NOW we’re talking “indipendence”!

You do realize that if guns had not existed at the time of the American Revolution, the English wouldn’t have had them either. And if guns had not existed at the time of WW2, the Germans and the Japanese wouldn’t have had them, either.

If guns had not been invented, who’s to say WW2 would have happened, who’s to say England would have had control of the colonies in 1775, who’s to say Columbus would have been trying to reach India in 1492?


“We’re gonna have lawyers here. It’ll be a fun time.”
–R.R.S.