Re: BIAS: CNN commits fraud, rewrites history, WAS: RE: "liberal media"

From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 19 2003 - 14:05:44 MDT

  • Next message: Mike Lorrey: "Re: MATRIX: Movie inspires murderers???"

    --- Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
    > In a message dated 5/19/2003 12:29:37 PM Central Standard Time,
    > mlorrey@yahoo.com writes: But what would be the new criteria? The
    > criteria that Feinstein is using is exclusively an aesthetic
    > judgement that a firearm 'looks military'.
    >
    > Mike,
    > You seem to know much more about gun law than I do so let me
    > ask a question of you.
    > I keep hearing about a division between "military" weapons"
    > and "sport weapons." Some seem to try to convince us that it is
    > all right to have sport weapons but not military weapons. You have
    > just quoted Senator Feinstein making that distinction.

    Yes, the distinction between 'sporting use' and 'military use' was
    first defined by the Nazi government in its amended Reichsgeletsblatt
    in the 1930's. They essentially used it to keep fully automatic weapons
    and grenade launchers out of the hands of the populace, at least until
    the allies were marching on Berlin, when Hitler was overjoyed at
    supplying the man on the street with his own rifle and anti-tank
    weapon.

    Senator Dodd of Connecticutt (father of current Senator Dodd) was a
    Nuremburg prosecutor who obtained a personal copy of the
    Reichsgeletsblatt while in Germany during the Nuremburg Trials. In the
    late 1960's, when the assasinations of Kennedy, Kennedy, and King as
    well as a lot of anti-war and hippie revolutionary violence was
    occuring, Senator Dodd was chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Youth
    Violence, charged with formulating laws to deal with the problem of
    increasing violent crime. Senator Dodd trotted out his personal copy of
    the Reichsgeletsblatt and had the Legsilative Research Service
    translate it into english and define areas which would need changes due
    to differences in German and US legal systems.

    This became the rough draft of a bill that eventually became the Gun
    Control Act of 1968. The only significant changes were the removal of a
    nationwide gun registration system. Everything else was lifted entirely
    from this Nazi era statute, including the litmus test of 'sporting use'
    to define legal firearms and ammunition. (this historical information
    was investigated and documented by Jews For the Protection of Firearms
    Ownership).

    Since machine guns were already regulated under the 1934 tax law, they
    were left alone. Grenade launchers, bazookas, and any rifled arm
    greater than .50 caliber was judged to be 'military weapons' and
    classified as 'destructive devices', which you must obtain a DD license
    to obtain. Armor piercing and explosive ammunition were also similarly
    restricted, and until the late 1970s, you had to fill out a form and
    present an ID in order to buy ammunition. The ammo restrictions were
    lifted then because it was found that no crimes were prevented or
    solved by the ammo documentation system, and the cost of the paperwork
    was skyrocketing. The feds needed at one point three warehouses to
    store all the submitted ammo purchase forms.

    > That distinction and the conclusion that we should be
    > permitted sports weapons and denied military weapons to be the
    > height of silliness and perhaps ignorance.

    Especially considering that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to
    ensure an armed populace capable of dealing not only with foreign
    invaders, but tyrannical domestic government that is unresponsive to
    the people.

    > As I understand our Constitution, our right to own weapons is
    > based at least in part on our need to form a militia. Is Senator
    > Feinstein suggesting that if we are called, with our weapon, to
    > serve in our local militia that we should show up with our trusty 22
    > caliber target rifle to face hostile troops armed with the latest
    > weapons that military science can offer. Is she being
    > silly? If I have to serve I want to own the best military weapon and
    > ammunition my wallet can afford.
    > Mike, have I got that right or am I missing something.

    Youve got it. They insist we only posess sporting firearms, yet insist
    that the 2nd is only for providing for a militia, which would depend on
    military firearms.

    It is a prescription for the sort of police state that socialist
    revolutionaries require to stage a revolution effectively. By
    segregating ownership of effective weapon ownership (the military) from
    non-effective weapon ownership (civilian pop-guns), they ensure that
    the populace is never able to effectively object to the imposition of
    socialist tyranny.

    =====
    Mike Lorrey
    "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                                        - Gen. John Stark
    Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.blogspot.com
    Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
    Pro-tech freedom discussion:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    http://search.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 19 2003 - 14:17:32 MDT