[blackjack21]

The notion that the constitution is a living document, carefully crafted to encourage its change when necessary, IS the conservative position. It is the very definition of 'original intent'.

The Fourteenth Amendment didn't change the process for adding or removing constitutional amendments, although SCOTUS often seems to ignore that fact.

May I remind our gentle reader that the right to bear arms was not part of the original constitution.

We might also remind our gentle reader that the original thirteen colonies would not have ratified that constitution if there weren't 10 more amendments to it, since that constitution didn't even guarantee freedom of speech, separation of church and state, the prevention of quartering troops in private houses, a ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, a right to due process, a ban on cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Going back we can see what the founders thought of a "well ordered militia" as under the articles of confederation the states were not allowed a standing army but were required to "keep ready a well trained, disciplined and equipped militia".

Right. And as long as we have a standing army, we should always maintain a well-ordered and equipped militia to prevent mischievious officers and politicians from ruling against the will of the people, as they often do today--albeit with the fear that the people of the United States are heavily armed.

The world has changed but I refuse to allow these shit birds to claim the title 'conservative' and clothe themselves in what they wish to call "original intent".

Do you include George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and Ben Franklin in your list of "shit birds"?

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.

The great object is that every man be armed.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; …

The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.

Incidentally, this is why I would repeal the Fourteenth Amendment, due to SCOTUS' constant abuse of these articles.

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.

The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.

Good luck with that...

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

Sounds like the goals of some of the people on PoliticsForum...

After the ratification of the constitution, free blacks in many states were prohibited from owning firearms. The founders were fine with this. So the right to keep and bear arms by citizens of the US was never universal. Further.

That is because the Second Amendment applies to "The people" and not to "citizens." "The People" were free born white male adults that owned land or paid a poll tax.

How about them believing in a difference between military and hunting firearms. Well they did in Virginia where they passed a law that read that free blacks were not allowed to, ""to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead..."

So they were not adverse to that distinction either.

Yet, "The People" had those rights secured under the Second Amendment. It was the Fourteenth Amendment that incorporated all of those rights to all citizens irrespective of whether or not they were "The People." Further, current lawmakers have hidden that distinction from the American people. Most Americans don't even realize that this was and is a legal distinction.

DrLee is an Eisenhower conservative.

Eisenhower was deeply religious, having been raised by a precursor sect to the Jehovah's Witnesses and having become a Presbyterian as he assumed the White House. However, he was not highly regarded by conservative Republicans for his furtherance of Roosevelt's policies. Keep in mind, that the use of nuclear weapons was one of the ways to prevent the rise of the military industrial complex. So under Eisenhower, we had a nuclear air defense--that is, they put nuclear weapons on top of Nike Orion missiles, which they intended to launch and navigate into Soviet bomber fleets about 45 miles off shore, or off our borders and incinerate the bombers with air blast nukes.

By the 1950s, 'conservatism' had morphed into 'Eisehower conservatism' - high taxes, high social spending, anti-communism and social traditionalism.

Kennedy was more fiscally conservative than Eisenhower. He was the last fiscally conservative Democratic president.

You literally go so far as to say that the Republican party totally was the right side of the Civil War while the Democrats were for the South... then instantly swap around and say that Eisenhower doesn't count because reasons.

The Democrats were opposed to the Civil Rights Act, and it wasn't pushed through until 1964 by Everett Dirksen. Enough Northern Democrats were for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to get it through Congress. It was the Great Society that Republicans opposed, and many still do. Johnson pushed that with the idea that blacks would vote for the Democrats for the next 100 years. We're about 50 years into it, and Johnson hasn't been proven wrong yet.

The De Lisle carbine, a British World War II integrally suppressed rifle chambered in .45 ACP, was recorded at 85.5 dB in official firing tests.

Right! And don't forget the Welrod either. The action is louder than the report. Neither of those arms could have killed the number of people that were killed in Las Vegas. They simply didn't have enough velocity coming out of the barrel. Drop off is pretty fast. At that distance, little lumps of lead would fall like rain drops onto the street.

[Drlee]

George Washington wrote:
Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.

Then there was this deliberate piece of you fake news. What did Patrick Henry actually say and what was he discussing when he said it? The state militia. Here is the complete quote:

May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.

There is absolutely no evidence that he said it.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:
The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.

No he didn't.

Eisenhower was deeply religious, having been raised by a precursor sect to the Jehovah's Witnesses and having become a Presbyterian as he assumed the White House.

He was not deeply religious as far as we know. He did not participate in organized religion much during his military career.

I could go on. You simply should not take your enemy for granted when you post here. Right Blackjack.

So under Eisenhower, we had a nuclear air defense--that is, they put nuclear weapons on top of Nike Orion missiles, which they intended to launch and navigate into Soviet bomber fleets about 45 miles off shore, or off our borders and incinerate the bombers with air blast nukes.

Completely irrelevant. We had them long after Ike was dead. So why do you mention that?

[Hindsite]

We might also remind our gentle reader that the original thirteen colonies would not have ratified that constitution if there weren't 10 more amendments to it, since that constitution didn't even guarantee freedom of speech, separation of church and state, the prevention of quartering troops in private houses, a ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, a right to due process, a ban on cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Let me remind you that no amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. It states that no law shall be made to prevent the free exercise of religion. The Chaplain of the United States Senate opens each session of the United States Senate with a prayer, and provides and coordinates religious programs and pastoral care support for Senators, their staffs, and their families. The Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives is chosen to "perform ceremonial, symbolic, and pastoral duties". These responsibilities include opening House sessions with a prayer or coordinating the delivery of the prayer by guest chaplains recommended by members of the House.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.

There is absolutely no evidence that he said it.

Is there evidence Thomas Jefferson did not say it and who first said it? The person who first said it should be famous, like Benjamin Franklin. It sounds like something a leader of the Soviet Union or Russia might have said too.

[Drlee]

Let me remind you that no amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees separation of church and state.

Absolutely wrong. The separation clause does.

It states that no law shall be made to prevent the free exercise of religion.

No. It doesn't. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Madison, 1801, vetoed legislation to incorporate an Episcopal church in Washington. He said: "Madison was never one to tolerate any official ties between church and state. As he explained in a veto message to Congress, he rejected the church incorporation measure because it "exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions."

It "violates in particular," said Madison, "the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'"

The bill noted that the church would be involved with care of the poor and the education of their children. No public funds were earmarked for these charitable endeavors, but Madison saw the legislative action as a foot-in-the-door for such federal aid to religion. He told Congress the measure was "altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity." He added that the bill could "be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."

Chaplains are quite another thing. They stem from a time when armies moved in the field and when attendance at local services are not possible. Further, the chaplain corps of the various services serve to fund representation by denominations too poor to pay for widespread care of their members in uniform.

The Chaplain of the United States Senate opens each session of the United States Senate with a prayer, and provides and coordinates religious programs and pastoral care support for Senators, their staffs, and their families. The Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives is chosen to "perform ceremonial, symbolic, and pastoral duties". These responsibilities include opening House sessions with a prayer or coordinating the delivery of the prayer by guest chaplains recommended by members of the House.

And your point is? Now if the house should decide only to allow Methodists as chaplains that would violate the establishment clause. Not having a chaplain at all would not.

My personal opinion is that Christians should be very suspicious of any breach in the separation of church and state. It is to our benefit to have a strong wall of separation. As an evangelical, you of all people should look to a strong separation of church and state. That is unless you would prefer a Roman Catholic theocracy.

[Hindsite]

Absolutely wrong. The separation clause does.

There is no separation of church and state clause. Now, that was something attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

No. It doesn't. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Yes. it does. Congress making no laws with respect to an establishment of a religion does not mean there is a separation of Church and state. It just means that Congress can not rule over religion with their laws. It does not mean they can not exist together and that the Congressmen have to give up their religious views as a representative in Congress. Only fools think that they do.

And your point is?

My point is that the amendment does not say there is a separation between Church and state.

My personal opinion is that Christians should be very suspicious of any breach in the separation of church and state. It is to our benefit to have a strong wall of separation.

No it isn't.

As an evangelical, you of all people should look to a strong separation of church and state. That is unless you would prefer a Roman Catholic theocracy.

That is what the establishment clause prevents. It was not meant to prevent the Congress men and women from freely exercising their religion while in Congress or out of Congress.

[Godstud]

The whole point is so people cannot use their religion to lord over others who don't have the same religion. Religion has no place in the law, because people don't all follow the same religious laws. It's what prevents the US from ever becoming a religious theocracy. You are free to follow your own religion, but you are not free to apply it to others. Your Founding Fathers got it right.

Having said that, the separation of church and state is hardly the first unwritten concept that is protected by the constitution. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a women’s constitutional right to have an abortion despite the word abortion never appearing in the constitution. In the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court established that laws against same sex marriage were unconstitutional despite the word marriage never appearing in the constitution. In the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court established that the constitution guarantees the right to an attorney despite the words public defender never appearing in the constitution. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court established that the second amendment right to bear arms included the right to bear arms for self-defense despite the words self-defense never appearing in the constitution.

It should also be noted that of the 112 Supreme Court Justices, none of them has been an atheist. In fact 92 percent of them were Christian. What rationale would these justices have for making laws that would create a legal prejudice towards their system of beliefs, especially if the separation of Church and State is a misinterpretation?

[Ranb]

The De Lisle carbine, a British World War II integrally suppressed rifle chambered in .45 ACP, was recorded at 85.5 dB in official firing tests.

That was most likely done with old noise meters that lacked a microphone with a fast response. Al Paulson writes in Silencers; History and Performance that a 20 micro-second response time is needed to to determine the noise level of a gun in accordance with Mil-Std 1474d. I read an article which featured test results of a refurbished WWII era Delisle Carbine. It had a noise level of about 125 decibels which is very good for a gu firing a center fire cartridge. A suppressed rifle using subsonic 22r will be about 110-115 decibels.

Anyone showing less than 110 decibels for a suppressed firearm is probably using inadequate noise monitoring equipment.

[Hindsite]

The whole point is so people cannot use their religion to lord over others who don't have the same religion.

True. However, atheist should not be allowed to Lord over those with religious views either. That is why we have exceptions for conscientious objectors and for Jehovah Witnesses on blood transfusions. However, Supreme Court Justices can be wrong, especially when the decisions are 5 to 4. They do not make laws and their opinions can be overturned. Praise the Lord.

[Ranb]

Don’t know what baffles or spacers are.

A baffle is something that disrupts gas flow, they're commonly used in any type of muffler, for guns, cars or gas systems. A spacer simply separates the spacers from each other.

I’m too frightened to google them cos the guvments a watchin.

You're indulging in sarcasm right?

I was googling the history of guns not that long ago and I was well freaked out..

What freaked you out about the history of guns?

I’d have thought that the actual material a silencer is made with to be of primary importance; the shape also.

The primary design feature is the baffle; an empty tube does little to suppress noise. A plastic silencer will work on a low power 22lr, but a semi-auto will rapidly erode the baffles if they're not made of steel (the 1st baffle) or aluminium (the rest).

[ingliz]

125 decibels

Wrong!

[youtube]IsUALdGog4U[/youtube]

[Suntzu]

Very interesting! The perfect tool to get rid of stray cats.

[Drlee]

It should be pointed out that the reduction of sound is logarithmic. What might seem minor reductions in sound are actually very significant.

But no matter. I don't really care how much sound a silencer attenuates when attached to an AR-15, M-16 or SKS. Private citizens should not be permitted to own them anyway. The same with large capacity magazines.

Yes. it does. Congress making no laws with respect to an establishment of a religion does not mean there is a separation of Church and state. It just means that Congress can not rule over religion with their laws. It does not mean they can not exist together and that the Congressmen have to give up their religious views as a representative in Congress. Only fools think that they do.

Illiterate.

But for the record, Congress CAN make rules that constrain religious expression of certain types. All human and some animal sacrifice come to mind. (You will remember that in Jesus time animal sacrifice would have been a part of His religious practice. Mary and Joseph practiced animal sacrifice we are told.) Yet we prohibit certain kinds of animal sacrifice and not others. We prohibit religious expression that invades the rights of others. Zoning laws affect churches. So do building occupancy and safety laws.

I do not know what your nonsense about congress members giving up their religious beliefs is about.

[Ranb]

Wrong!

The 85 dB Delisle Carbine is for the most part an urban legend. The claim is that the "original test results" are 85 dB. But no one is able to say anything about how these results were obtained. I can obtain better than 85 dB with any gun provided I use a microphone with a slow rise time or a meter that is unsuitable for very loud noise. All good tests provide unsuppressed and suppressed data; there is no noise data for the Delise with the silencer removed.

The maker of the video says his Delisle is quieter than his suppressed 22lr. This would only be true if he was using supersonic ammo in a suppressed rifle or pistol. Like most suppressed firearm videos, the action noise and bullet impact noise are louder than the muzzle blast. As impressive as this carbine is on video, it's probably more impressive in person. Doesn't mean it's 85 decibels though

http://www.silencertalk.com/results.htm Some noise testing with proper equipment and current standards.
http://www.silencertalk.com/docs/mil-std-1474d.pdf Testing standards. I don't think they were able to meet these standards in the 1940's.
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=89571 Another opinion on the actual noise levels.

[Ranb]

It should be pointed out that the reduction of sound is logarithmic. What might seem minor reductions in sound are actually very significant.

A good silencer does a very good job of lowering noise levels; doesn't make the gun silent though.

But no matter. I don't really care how much sound a silencer attenuates when attached to an AR-15, M-16 or SKS. Private citizens should not be permitted to own them anyway.

Why not? You still haven't said anything about why silencers are highly immoral. Based on what I've read, fewer crime are committed with silencers than any other firearm. Most of the crime associated with silencers is evasion of the tax; violent crime is very rare.

[ingliz]

supersonic ammo

The speed of sound is 343 meter/second.

The .45 ACP cartridge is subsonic (230gr : 260 m/s).

The maker of the video says his Delisle is quieter than his suppressed 22lr.

A very short (7″) barrel was ported to bleed off propellant gases and the muzzle was counter-bored into a flared internal profile. Both measures encouraged rapid reduction of gas pressure at the muzzle, greatly reducing report. Over this was fitted an integral suppressor of substantial length (longer than the barrel) and diameter, providing a large internal volume in which propellant gases expand and cool.

The quietest shoulder arm ever developed?

... there was no bang whatsoever – just the click of the released firing pin, the whiz of the bullet (not heard normally) and the thump as the bullet hits the stop-bank (or body). In the jungle most of the noises would be smothered and would pass unnoticed if not unheard.

A modern reproduction is said to possess a report similar to a sub-12 ft/lbs air rifle.

the action noise

They were also fitted with small dampening pads (wood, rubber, or bakelite) under the bolt handle to eliminate the ‘clack’ of the bolt stem contacting the metal of the action body.

[Ranb]

A very short (7″) barrel was ported to bleed off propellant gases and the muzzle was counter-bored into a flared internal profile. Both measures encouraged rapid reduction of gas pressure at the muzzle, greatly reducing report. Over this was fitted an integral suppressor of substantial length (longer than the barrel) and diameter, providing a large internal volume in which propellant gases expand and cool....

I'm very familiar with the Delisle. I made my own version from my Enfield rifle a few years ago. I used a longer ported barrel and a larger silencer.

It worked very well. There was very little muzzle noise, I could hear the bullet humming through the air and the impact into a dirt berm was one of the more dominant noises.

But the fact remains that it is far louder than 85 decibels. The very short duration of the noise makes it appears to be less noisy. You ever hear the noise of the bolt on a 10/22 cycling on a empty chamber? With the proper noise meter it is 110 decibels.

Someday I'm going to shorten the Enfield bolt and set back the barrel to make it more authentic.

A 22 caliber rifle with a 22 caliber silencer is going to far less noisy than any 45 caliber rifle. The 22lr subsonic cartridge uses a powder charge of about 2 grains, the 45 acp uses 5-11 grains. A higher powder charge means more pressure and gases to contain. The larger hole in the end of the silencer lets out more noise. It is impossible to suppress a 45 caliber rifle equipped with a portable silencer more than it is possible to suppress a 22 caliber rifle.

I've also shot other higher caliber suppressed guns like the 44 magnum Silent Destroyer and the 510 Whisper on a TC Encore. The 44 was less noisy than my Enfield, but the 510 Whisper was louder; so surprise since it used a 27 grain charge of powder and was far more powerful than the 44 mag or 45 acp.

[blackjack21]

He was not deeply religious as far as we know. He did not participate in organized religion much during his military career.

He was more than likely hiding the fact that he was raised Anabaptist and by what became the Jehovah's Witnesses. Keep in mind, it was Eisenhower who put "under God" into the pledge of allegiance, and made "In God We Trust" the national motto. I'm sure as a military man, he didn't want to reveal that his upbringing was more or less a pacifist understanding of Christianity. Anabaptists adhered to a literal interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, including refraining from military service.

Completely irrelevant. We had them long after Ike was dead. So why do you mention that?

Eisenhower wasn't hostile to the welfare state. So the political left champions him as a "reasonable" Republican. However, they white wash what would be considered "extreme" today, like adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance, making "In God We Trust" the national motto, executing Operation Wetback to repatriate illegal aliens, or putting nuclear weapons on top of missiles as an air defense--all of which the political left would characterize a person as a "radical extremist outside the mainstream of American society" these days.

But the fact remains that it is far louder than 85 decibels. The very short duration of the noise makes it appears to be less noisy. You ever hear the noise of the bolt on a 10/22 cycling on a empty chamber? With the proper noise meter it is 110 decibels.

From the point of fire or the point of impact? Suppressed ammunition has a higher rate of drop off, but it is pretty quiet at the point of impact relative to the supersonic crack of a typical .223 round.

[Drlee]

However, they white wash what would be considered "extreme" today, like adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance,

making "In God We Trust" the national motto,

Man. You really don't know your history very well. "In God We Trust" was passed by a joint resolution of congress. The resolution was introduced by a Democrat and passed by a democrat controlled house and senate. Sigh.

The under God stuff was started by the Knights of Columbus and first proposed as a resolution by a democrat but not acted on.

Neither if these things matter. They were wildly popular with both parties. And still are.

executing Operation Wetback to repatriate illegal aliens, or putting nuclear weapons on top of missiles as an air defense--all of which the political left would characterize a person as a "radical extremist outside the mainstream of American society" these days.

You mean like "build that wall"? That kind of extremist? Or Obama's massive deportations?

Project Wetback was done at the insistence of the Mexican government.

Finally. Nuclear Air Defense weapons were not controversial at all.

You are losing it. Where is all this shit coming from?

[Hindsite]

He was more than likely hiding the fact that he was raised Anabaptist and by what became the Jehovah's Witnesses.

The descendents of the 16th century Anabaptist are the Amish, Hutterites, Mennonite and later developments into the Brethren churches and the Apostolic Christian Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism.

Jehovah's Witnesses had its origins in the Bible Student movement, which developed in the United States in the 1870s among followers of Christian Restorationist minister Charles Taze Russell. Bible Student missionaries were sent to England in 1881 and the first overseas branch was opened in London in 1900.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... _Witnesses

[Ranb]

From the point of fire or the point of impact? Suppressed ammunition has a higher rate of drop off, but it is pretty quiet at the point of impact relative to the supersonic crack of a typical .223 round.

I refer to the shooter's view as far as noise is concerned. Proper noise measurement of guns takes place with the microphone one meter to the side of the muzzle.

What do you mean by suppressed ammo? The muzzle blast of a gun can be suppressed, but bullet flight noise cannot. If the bullet is subsonic, it will hum/buzz a bit as it moves through the air, a supersonic one will make a whip cracking noise.