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