Posted on 04/13/2009 10:12:45 AM PDT by presidio9
If John Travolta, an avid user of his private jet and a reported Republican, were to be stopped by law from purchasing an armed fighter plane, would the film actor suddenly be surrounded by the same people who sanctimoniously claim that the Constitution protects the private citizen's right to buy and own an assault rifle?
That seems an absurd question, but we often find ourselves in absurd circumstances when we get to the gun issue. A hard fact leers before us: on the subject of guns, constitutional meaning and misinterpretation have been mixed together for so long that far too many people think our Constitution advocates things that it does not.
Confusion over history and the law are not new, but our trouble with gun ownership truly stands apart from the rules of how things are usually done.
In our democratic history a process leading to important policy changes has appeared over and over. It reveals a sense of ongoing injustice and the proof of blood sacrifice made by those who experience pain, mental suffering and death resulting from abusive policy.
The sequence of events is fairly simple: Something terribly wrong is discovered, it is then studied, conclusions are reached and a case is made for better laws being drafted.
Once the issue is raised into plain sight, the proverbial ball starts rolling.
Our attempts to create a mature and rational gun policy have not gone well. The lobby representing the NRA has had so much sway over Congress that the politicians run for cover rather than get on the lobby's enemies list. If they do, reelection becomes much harder.
The trouble has nothing to do with the right to hunt or the right to own a weapon for self-protection. The trouble is that any change is interpreted with the logic of a survivalist. Any limitations on what can and cannot be bought, can or cannot be stockpiled, are indisputable proof that "they" are taking our rights away and making us so docile or so vulnerable that "we" will be pushovers when the marching boots arrive and strip us of our liberty.
What is most startling about it all is how invulnerable that species of thought is to true domestic terrorism and lunatic slayings. The logic of freelance survivalists in government or the gun lobby is made ridiculous by the blood sacrifice all around us.
There is no civilized or reasonable reaction to all of the murders committed by urban street gangs or the highly publicized nuts so isolated from reality that killing becomes a terrifying way of getting attention or proving your alienation from others.
Add the fact that purported supporters of law and order manage to ignore the legions in law enforcement who oppose the sale of assault weapons to the citizenry. Why would they not? They know all of the details about the urban terrorism of street gangs and the tragedies unleashed by armed loons. We can add in the documented fact that weapons bought at unmonitored gun fairs are arming Mexican drug dealers who will end up fighting American troops very soon. Makes no difference. There is always a cost to following the Constitution. Enough said.
But not quite. Perhaps money is the real answer. I think that Russell Simmons, Arianna Huffington, George Soros and other limousine liberals should gather their forces and raise enough money from the wealthy who are actually interested in our civilization. With enough money, they just might be able to put a hole in the bucket of the gun lobby.
Worse things have been tried.
crouch.stanley@gmail.com
No, but the machine guns, if any, on such a plane must have been built before March 19, 1986. I presume the missles would be sold as Destructive Devices, IF you could find a seller wiling to sell them.
John Travolta? Fighter plane? WTF?? There are a lot of privately-owned fighter planes in the USA. I get the feeling this idiot is talking about “assault rifles”, thinking they are fully automatic machine guns. I’m willing to be he wouldn’t understand the difference if somebody tried to explain it to him.
Heller is not your your side. It does not preclude "reasonable restrictions" or registration (although how any restrictions of a right can be considered reasonable is beyond me.)
Speaking of Jefferson, UVA has a tremendous site, I believe it’s virginia dot edu, with every single verfied TJ quote and letter by subject. Hundreds of them.
True, the plane’s machineguns would have to be made after 1986. And if Travolta wanted new ones - to the chagrin of the author - there would be a great many backing his legal endeavor to overturn prohibition 922(o).
And yes, the missiles would come with a $200 tax (given a seller).
No matter how the original argument is reduced, it fails thru absurdity. Travolta wants a fighter plane? already owns several. Wants new MGs on them? has the money & support for a court case if he wants.
Your right. Using “prarie wagon” is not a good idea as it may confuse learned folks, but most people don’t know what a Conestoga wagon is. Probably best to use just “wagon”.
It's probably best to quote things that George Washington actual said. Your original quote isn't among them.
At the time, it was common and routine for private individuals to own cannon.
Private merchant ships needed to be armed with the means of repelling pirates, a wisdom we have since lost, judging from current news reports from Somalia.
There is no solution that does not involve taking the gang bangers off the street, by whatever means necessary.
Thanks
Stanley opened the door by admitting gang bangers are Domestic Terrorists.
So let's treat them as such. Not 'good boys' who were 'turning their lives around'.
I have a hunch he didn't have that in mind when he was writing this tripe. ;-)
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.