Where do you draw the line???

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GP
Thanks.

It's not like I can't handle the kick. But I definitely have to shoot the weapon with both hands. And it moves upwards dramatically after shooting. (Seems like this happens to everybody. at least form watching at firing range.)

9 mm is really different. It's like "tink, tink, tink".

My uncle complained about the same thing. He said the trick to firing the .45 was to anticipate the line that the .45 would wander to, so that you could adjust quickly and bring it right back on to the target. If you are thinking of getting a gun for personal use, try a non 1911 Colt design. Both MtG and I have Sig .45s, and I can tell you that mine has no tendency to rear up like that. In fact it's definitely the most accurate center fire pistol I've ever owned, which is a nice feeling since it's designed as a smaller carry version of the P220 (with a slightly shorter barrel). I do fire with both hands, but that's just the way I was taught, it's not necessary to control the weapon.

I never liked the 9mm. I had nothing against it originally, but I only found one that I could regularly hit with, and many which were either inaccurate or just didn't match up well with me. The one that I had good luck with was a fairly cheap Ruger btw. One of my roomates in the army had a Sig P226, which was really expensive, and I couldn't hit with it. It was frustrating because I could shoot the eyes out of a gnat from 25 meters with my .22 target pistol in those days, but struggled to hit a can with consecutive shots at the same distance with what was then a state of the art handgun.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sikander

I haven't ever seen AP ammo made for handguns (in fact just the opposite with non-penetrating rounds popular for home defense), though of course that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The vast majority that I have seen was military surplus ammo, and it isn't all that useful for hunting to be sure. The only reasons I could see in making it for handguns are:

1) To give someone the capability of taking on armored foes with a handgun. Which begs the question, why aren't you arming properly for this in the first place?

2) To give outfitters / guides / others who work outdoors in Alaska a capability to defend themselves and their clients from grizzlies, kodiaks and polar bears without having them have to haul a rifle or one of those super-magnum handguns around.

As I understand, it the cop killers were originally designed by the police to deal with shooting at (through) windshields etc. It is AP handgun ammunition and as you have posted yourself its uses are limited.

Personally, the idea of meeting a large bear with only a handgun is not a good thought, but its better than nothing. Since I've never been much of a shot over 200m with a rifle and grizzlies can reach speeds of 40mph I think I'd rather have something like a .50 cal machine gun.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by SpencerH
As I understand, it the cop killers were originally designed by the police to deal with shooting at (through) windshields etc. It is AP handgun ammunition and as you have posted yourself its uses are limited.

Personally, the idea of meeting a large bear with only a handgun is not a good thought, but its better than nothing. Since I've never been much of a shot over 200m with a rifle and grizzlies can reach speeds of 40mph I think I'd rather have something like a .50 cal machine gun.

And I'd like to have that 50 cal. mounted on a helicopter! As far as the handgun thing, I guess a lot of people working in the wild can't carry rifles easily and still do their work. I would prefer a long arm personally, though I've only contemplated working in Alaska once, and it was an indoor job.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sikander
Take a look at places where the gun laws are strictest in the U.S. (hint: They are large urban areas and states which include a high proportion of their population in large urban areas), and then note their crime rates. There is a very obvious connection to the two stats. That connection is that strict gun laws have been passed in many of the most dangerous parts of the country as a reaction to their high murder rates. Conversely much of the country has less strict gun laws, more guns and less crime. I rate the reactive factor (momentum for gun restrictions based upon high crime rates) as more important than the reluctance of criminals to do their business where their victims are more likely to be armed, though I think both factors are in play.

The causal relationship is unclear at this point, because large urban areas tend to contain slums, and slums tend to be prone to crime. When you have a higher concentration of people, the number of crimes go up even when the crime rate stays the same. So how does the whole thing look per capita and adjusted by income?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by loinburger


There was a law against secession?

It is not permitted under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court ruling on the matter upheld that view. Waaaay back in the thread about the South I showed how the Constitution fully gave Lincoln the authority to act as he did in terms of sending Federal troops into the South to quell the uprising.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
There was no explicit law against it --- but just as there is no written law against murder, it is still illegal.

Wrong-o, the Constitution does prohibit it. Just not in the terms "You can't secede!" It is based on several different clauses in the Constitution.

[SpencerH]

The Declaration of Independence itself provides for secession - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

[SpencerH]

Article 10 reserves to the states and the people all powers not delegated to the national government or prohibited by the constitution to the states. Secession by the states from the union is not directly prohibited by the constitition therefore it was legal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Declaration of Independence itself provides for secession - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

The Declaration of Independence has no place in Constitutional Law, or any law for that matter... it was merely a propaganda piece.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Spencer: Article 1 of the Constitution forbids states from leaving because it prevents states from breaking contracts... The Constitution of the United States is one such contract.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The Declaration of Independence itself provides for secession - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document nor does anything within it have a bearing on the Constitutionality of our laws. In addition, the right of some people to abolish said government does not trump the right of other people (whom, during the Civil War, constituted the majority of the people in the U.S.) to wish to keep the government in tact.

Were it the majority opinion that the U.S. government be abolished, and the people had come together to do as such, then this argument might hold, but that was not the case, so it does not.

Secession was unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

[SpencerH]

As you've said the declaration of independence was not law, but it does illuminate the thinking of the founders of this country. They were carrying o a revolution against their lawful ruler. Does it make sense that they would virtually forbid secession? I dont think so.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Spencer: Article 1 of the Constitution forbids states from leaving because it prevents states from breaking contracts... The Constitution of the United States is one such contract.

I've looked through article 1 and the only piece that references contracts is this:

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty , alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts , or grant any title of nobility.

The clear meaning to me of this section is that the individual states shall not attempt to usurp the powers granted to the government of the entire union. I dont see this as a prohibition to leaving the union.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
As you've said the declaration of independence was not law, but it does illuminate the thinking of the founders of this country. They were carrying o a revolution against their lawful ruler. Does it make sense that they would virtually forbid secession? I dont think so.

Those same Founding Fathers showed the right way to do it when they abolished the Articles of Confederation and established the Constitution. That was by a consensus it wasn't working and a new agreement needed to be worked out. There was no consensus in 1860 for a new government. It was, in fact, the opinion of a very vocal and hot-headed minority. I certainly don't think the Michigan Militia has any right to break away from the rest of the country just because they happen to be anti-government freakazoids.

I don't think Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison and the like would have approved or tolerated the manner in which the South tried to split from the Union, particularly since the justification given by the initial seceding states was the election of Lincoln. The notion that a state can withdraw during a temper tantrum over who wins an election is, to me, clearly wrong. Otherwise the fabric binding the nation is subject to the whims of any state legislature.

Constitutionality:

If you all (or y'all ) can be patient, tonight I will point out the relavent Constitutional passages (it is many tied into one). And again, the SCOTUS ruled that secession was indeed unconstitutional.

[SpencerH]

Boris

I have to admit I like that argument.

Couple of points though. The Issue then becomes whether there was true consensus amongst the people of each state that seceded from the union (and that I have no idea about).

As for the decision by the SCOTUS in 1869 as to the legality of secession, its pretty clear that that august body is as affected by their personal beliefs as are any individual people. I wonder if that ruling would hold up today if challenged (and heard).