And the big question is...so what? You're the only one who seems to be bothered by it.
But back on topic, it looks like Nancy is coming down off her high and is coming to her senses. Seems she is now willing to listen to the people and bring this to a vote. Perhaps America will become more self sufficient by using our own natural resources instead of someone elses. I did have to laugh though. Her claim was she was trying to "save the planet". Somebody needs to explain to her that the planet includes the entire globe, not just he USA. What is the difference if the oil is drilled in Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, the Middle East, Alaska, or off shore?
Where does it say that firearms may only be owned for sport?
Back on subject,this morning,Nancy was quoted on Fox about how she'd support debating drilling if it included a broad range of topics.
Most likely she wants to insure that spills are harshly punished and those that spill or harm the environment are slammed as well.
Maybe she needs to go out on a drill rig and try to explain to the people working there how to do their jobs.I wonder how that would be received:as help or an insult?
If she thinks that drill crews don't know how to do their jobs without tearing up the planet,maybe she shouldn't run for re-election but instead open a school where she can teach oil companies how they should be accomplishing their mission statement.
50 cal M2 HB. Now you're using the term "sporting value" which is similar, but not the same as "sporting purpose". Either way, your statement will be debunked in two ways: In legal terms and on principal.
First, the "Sporting Purpose" clause is a near absolute power granted to the Attorney General to authorize the importation of rifles and shotguns into the United States only if it is recognized as suitable for sporting purposes. This clause only applies to importation; domestic production is excluded from it. As a requirement of the government contracts regulating their production, all M2’s used by Uncle Sam were produced domestically, thus they cannot be imported, thus each one is excluded from the Attorney General’s authority granted under this law. The details of this can be found in 18 U.S.C. section 925 (d) (3).
Secondly, this sporting purpose clause can only be applied to rifles and shotguns. It cannot be applied to pistols, revolvers, or machine guns. By definition, a M2 is a machine gun; therefore it is excluded (again) from the requirements of the sporting purpose clause.
Finally, I’ll address your hair splitting definition of a firearm that has no sporting value. You wrote “no sporting value”, which is clearly synonymous with “zero sporting value”. If I find just one sport where a 50 cal M2 HB can be used, then a M2 would have “some” sporting value, thus making your statement false.
I refer you to the “Classes Of Competition” found on page 5 of the Official Match Rules and By Laws of the Fifty Caliber Shooter’s Association, Inc, an organization dedicated to advancing the sporting uses of the .50 BMG cartridge. They have 16 shooting competitions scheduled for 2008.
Paragraph 3 details the requirements for any firearm used in the Unlimited Class which reads: “Any barreled receiver that fires a bullet with a diameter of .510/.511 inches.” Though it’s called a “50”, the actual diameter of a 50 BMG’s projectile is .510” to .511”. Clearly, an M2 machine gun falls into this broad category. And in the used firearm market there are several M2’s that are available for private ownership and are presently for sale. That means we can buy an M2, and use it for sport shooting at FCSA shooting matches, thus an M2 HB has “some” sporting value, and it would have a sporting purpose.
Your Sporting Purpose/Value misconception has been busted. Look on the bright side: At least you didn't deny being the first person to hijack the thread.
These forums take off-topic directions all the time. And for most of us that have been here for years it is one of the things that keeps it interesting for us. Don't like it? Tough.Quote:
I've not asked anyone to keep quite, only to take the discussion to the appropriate forum.
Shouldn't you be spending more time researching how a TurboDRAFT operates, anyway? :rolleyes:
There's no reason to get worked up about a thread going off topic.
29 posts into the thread.
What is important to remember is that the framers of the Constitution had just gone through a revolution to gain their freedom. Key to the overthrow of the tyrannical government was the ability of the revolutionary forces to have firearms. The framers intended for the populace to have guns of what ever type to protect them from bad government
No need to, Sc was not the one who's panties were all twisted about because the thread had drifted off topic.
I'm just surprised (not really though) to see you would continue to keep this thread off course. After all, there are plenty of gun control threads on these boards.
And you know how it is, no one would want to read the title of this thread and read about gun control, but whatever.
Although I am undoubtedly the most intelligent person most of you will ever encounter, when I have limited knowledge of a subject, I admit it. I have limited knowledge of the subject of offshore drilling. But I can't seem to remember a major oil spill that occurred from a drilling rig. Anecdotally, I have heard about a major spill in like 1968. But in my adult life, there apparently hasn't been one.
If that is true, wouldn't that make offshore oil drilling incredibly safe and environmentally friendly? There wasn't even a major spill post-Katrina. Of course, that would provide even further proof that Pelosi is a fool.
Secondly, I have an aquaintance who regularly fishes in AK in the area where the Valdez oil spill occurred. He reports that the area is cleaner, more beautiful and has an abundant array of fish since the oil spill. There is no evidence of the spill. I am not advocating having an oil spill to spark a makeover, but I think it shows that these horrible incidents don't mean the end of life as we know it.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about an Interstate Highway System and the feds built one.
Founding Father Thomas Jefferson had a very strict view of the responsibilities of government when he wrote the Constitution. Yet during his presidency he funded the Lewis and Clark Expedition. There's no mention of that being a governmental responsibility either.
The feds provide funds to build the highways, but they are controlled and operated (owned if you will) by the states.
Which is a protected right of the states in the tenth amendment.
I wouldn't recommend trying taking that right away either.
There are numerous government activities that are not explicitly written in the Constitution, yet they are in fact a legal or legitimate act of the Feds.
When I hear critics of the Feds rationalize the Federalist Papers as the basis of the government and its considered excess I use the Jefferson example to explain even some of those Founding Fathers didn't adhere to those tenets in their totality.
Adhering to those tenets entirely and abrogating the rights affirmed to individuals by certain amendments (note I did not write 'grant') are not exactly the same.
Seems pretty clear to me. The people have a right to bear arms.
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.
I love how people who want to curb my own Constitutionally guaranteed rights will never give one inch on their own rights.
This is not necesarily directed at SC, just an observation I have made.
Just remember, the Constitution tells the PEOPLE what the government CANNOT do.
As for the interstate highway system, it was built with 3 major purposes in mind - which are largely forgotten or.....conveniently ignores.
1) Transportation of goods for interstate commerce
2) Evacuation of major cities in time of war - which I extend to disaster
3) Movement of military assets to more easily provide for national defense.
Me being able to drive from Boston to Seattle on I-90 is certainly not a major purpose.