Posted on 07/26/2006 4:47:07 PM PDT by bad company
"Strange attitude.. -- Aren't you pledged, as a officer of the court, to protect & defend our constitutional liberties?"
What makes you think a lawyer actually understands or respects the law? To a lawyer, the law is whatever he can convince a judge.
Sad, -- but oh so true.
All felons?
See http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html and http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2005/07/if-guns-cause-crime-why-is-switzerland.html for more info.
Most places that I have lived don't require that if the road is divided.
I agree that all should be treated equally, I have never claimed otherwise. The issue is that drug dealers and gang-bangers can get what they want without applying for a stamp or getting the government's permission. Do you think the drug dealers get the government's permission to deal drugs, apply for the stamp (license) to sell narcotics or buy the product legally? No. They will always get what they want, us law abiding citizens won't.
Your response is contradictory, if the neighbor has a semi-auto, you will need to avoid many bullets that are fired off almost as fast as a full auto and will do a lot of damage and thus the odds are greater as you said.
Semi-autos shot similar to the spray and pray style are just as dangerous to innocent bystanders as a full auto. The actions are the same except that one requires you to pull a trigger for each shot. If you have a fast trigger finger you can shoot almost as fast as a full auto, that is a fact.
That is why you create laws that spell out in no uncertain terms what is/isn't allowed. Take eminant domain, if you are going to allow it you either state that public use is for government buildings, roads and parks (nothing else) or you say that it may be used to give to developers for malls, etc. No grey areas, no way to pervert it.
The difference is the semi-automatic requires a conscious decision to fire each round. You must fire, release and then re-fire - each action requiring you to pull the trigger. Hopefully, each action is thought out.
An automatic requires a single pull on the trigger, and the gun will fire until you either run out of ammo (likely) or it over-heats (unlikely). When in full automatic mode, the gun tends to jump with each shot; causing unanticipated rounds to go where they weren't intended. At least that's what the Iraqi's thought when the father of the groom mowed down the wedding party when he decided to use a machinegun as an impromptu noise-maker.
If that was your point and you are an attorney, I'll go elsewhere when I need legal advice.
"That is why you create laws that spell out in no uncertain terms what is/isn't allowed.....No grey areas, no way to pervert it."
Sorry, I don't think thats possible. Even if it were, they would just change the law to let them do what they wanted. IMO you're making an assumption that the people making the laws are honorable. Certainly some are but many are not especially those who have been in office an extended period. Let's not forget that we haven't even established the meaning of the work "is".
We are dependent on the people we elect and any amount of work by us is still dependent on them. They create, enforce, and interpret the laws. Some clerk with an agenda puts some awkward working in and then some senator doesnt even read the law. It happens every day.
The people must remain vigilant and involved.
"Based on crime statistics, the current restrictions seem to be working fairly well. So shoot me."
Referring to the laws on automatic weapons only. IMO, most people aren't too concerned with the process for getting the license to excercise their constitutional right of owning a automatic weapon. They don't like it but would be willing to live with it.
What concerns most people is the reality that you can't actually buy one of these weapons at anything that resembles a reasonable cost. Nor can you buy anything except a firearm that is at least 22 years old.
A Chinese .223 that had been shot 4 times?
(Bang-.2235, Bang Bang - .2237)
"I will say though that I do believe that anyone who has EVER committed a crime with a gun should lose the right to own one forever. No second chances."
Thats being abused today. The 1000foot rule around schools would catch almost all of us if it was enforced. The people what want to prohibit ownership just keep lowering the bar to catch more and more people.
"But if you want to tell me that someone who passed a bad check 30 years ago and hasn't committed a crime since deserves another chance, I'd be open to discussion about it."
How about speeding? Or how about the guy going through an ugly divorce who's ex makes false and unfounded accusations. He doesn't need to be found guilty to have his gun rights effected. If the guy passes a bad check does he have to wait 30 years before he can buy a gun?
Actually,
Hell of a price to pay for listening to some guy who's a stoolie for ATF, and bailing on your lawyer and your court appearance. Weaver had a slam-dunk win, he just didn't know it. Of course, the feds were jamming him with legal bills he couldn't afford -- guess that's part of the pressure to go along and lie down, right?
That was precisely the purpose of the law -- to gradually dry up the available supply of automatic weapons until no private person could afford one unless he was, surprise, a member of the rich men's club.
I remember reading discussions at the time the law was passed, and that reasoning came up then.
Remember the grandfathering provisions of the 1994 "Crime Bill" on semiautomatic weapons? Same reasoning. Divide ("I've got mine, I don't care if they ban new ones")......and conquer.
That fragment of a sentence was the sum point of your post. I read your post multiple times, looking for nuances that might be there. There were none. The sole idea expressed in your post was a argumentative reversal of your previous argument. You can't have it both ways. I noticed that instead of actually addressing the issue, you chose to take the liberal's way out and attack me. I'm not saying you are a liberal, but you ARE using the tactics of the liberal. And you are definitely attempting to make the liberal's argument that "guns are bad, we need to outlaw them, because I don't like them, mmmkay?"
Personally, I think we need to curb the number of lawyers in this country, not the number of full auto capable weapons.
Another phoney baloney straw man argument. There are no limitations on what type of car you can own. If you want to own a 1000 hp supercharged Viper, then as long as you have the $$$ you can march right down to Hennesey tuning and get one - no government registration or restrictions. There are limitations on firing any type of weapon - for example you can't use your neighbor's dog for a target even for a BB gun. Likewise there are limitations on how you drive, but not what you drive. You are obviously an anti-gun troll. You've been parroting the Brady bunche's statist drivel in virtually every one of your posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.