Posted on 09/30/2005 10:51:39 AM PDT by holymoly
Make no bones about it: I am a liberal who believes that guns in themselves are not evil.
Are you shocked? You shouldn’t be. Some conservatives like to present the cliché counterargument that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people in debates about gun control. However, the question still remains: Exactly what argument do they think they are countering?
It is not the “liberal stance” that guns in themselves have the ability to kill people and are evil. In fact, anyone who believes this nonsense, liberal or conservative, is just plain dumb.
In fact, I – and most intelligent people of any political leaning – am of the opinion that an inanimate object cannot really have ethical qualities, one way or another. Thus, guns cannot be evil, but they cannot be good either.
What is evil is a government that allows people to buy guns - semi-automatic and automatic ones at that - who should not even be allowed to touch one.
Is the government limiting the second amendment right to bear arms if it says to someone: “No, you cannot own a gun”?
No.
People who should not be allowed to own guns:
• anybody who has committed a felony, ever. Exceptions could be made for people who have clearly “recovered” and wanted a weapon to protect their households.
• anybody who has ever been in prison (not jail) for an extended period of time, especially for gun crimes.
• anybody whose medical records show a history of mental illness.
• anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature.
Do I think it is acceptable for a “normal” citizen to own a gun for the purposes of self-protection and self-defense? Yes. In all likelihood, even if the government illegalized ALL guns, criminals would probably still be able to get their hands on them (although it might be a bit more difficult). Thus, if a criminal can get a gun, legally or illegally, I should be able to own one in case he or she breaks into my house with the intent to harm me or my family.
This right, however, should not extend into the realm of automatic weapons. The gun must have a child safety feature, and it should be made illegal for that person to re-sell his or her gun to whomever he or she chooses because you never know what kind of psychotic individual might then be the owner of the gun.
Also, when the founding fathers wrote that all American citizens should have the right to bear arms, there was no such thing as an automatic weapon. Guns that shot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger were not around. Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose.
Should these automatic weapons be legal?
NO. No, no, no.
If anybody can make a good argument as to why such weapons should be legal, or what positive purpose they serve in our society (or what purpose at all), please e-mail me or write an editorial about it.
A weapon that shoots bullets at a ridiculously rapid rate serves no real purpose in our society, other than killing people. If somebody wants to own a handgun for the purpose of injuring an intruder in his or her home who may be threatening his or her life, I am not opposed to that. Should a person be able to own an automatic weapon for the same purposes? Absolutely not. It is unnecessary, and you are more likely to kill the intruder rather than just injure him or her, which is also unnecessary.
So, in conclusion, guns are not evil. The acts they commit – via a person pulling the trigger – can be evil, but they are not always. I think it is always wrong to kill another person, regardless of what they have done. But it is not wrong to injure one who is trying to injure you or your family. Automatic weapons are just ridiculous and should be completely outlawed.
Unfortunately, in these modern times, the pen is no longer the most powerful weapon; the automatic rifle has taken its place.
If the government can own a BAR, I should be able to own a BAR.
If the government can own a quad 50, then I should be able to own a quad 50.
This is what the 2nd admendment was written for, for citizens to be able to protect themselves from what the government can become, and is becoming!
WRONG!!!!!!
They are fully legal in most states, providing the buyer is willing to jump through several unconstitutional legal hurdles.
My reaction to this $hit piece?
I will obtain at least one more NFA item today!
I could easily write the rejoinder to this seditionist drivel, but ther is no point, he clearly has an irration and closed mind.
For a genuinly educational experiance regards NFA items peruse http://www.nfaoa.org
Do not mess with the constitution - it is a grand document just as it is!
Exactly right!!
THe NFA of 1934 requires registration, a permit, and a transfer tax. It does not preclude the average citizen from legally owning fully automatic weapons. They are realtively expensive, though.
$200.00 transfer tax.
What would George Washington have given for a platoon with M-16's and a double basic ammo load? Sheesh!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that tax was $200 then, and the tax is the same today.
Oh, no, they aren't! I shot my first one this spring - FULL AUTO!
" anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature."
I can see where this is going...
To fight Federal Tyranny you would be declared a terrorist and anyone sympathetic to the cause would be a "Terrorist", anyone SUSPECTED would be confiscated and eventually it would elevate to anyone.
Terrorists kill WAYYY more people with bombs and planes into buildings and IED's than with guns so far...They know this. Then there are WMD's...Al Qaeda knows these are the ultimate terror tool not Automatic weapons. The government as become so big and power addicted that they're sole fear is losing that power.
....no radio, no internet, no high speed printing press, no automobiles, no trains, no aircraft, no.........
So I guess this jerks abilirty to post his trash should also be restricted as not being specifically allowed under the constitution?
BTW, when the constitution was ratified it was common for private Americans to own state of the art warships, cannon, etc.
Restrictions on the ownership of automatic weapons did not come into existence until the media frenzies of the thirties pushed them throught congress as an "answer" to the mobsters of the same time that congress empowered via prohibition.
You are correct. $200 was a lot of money then but not so much today.
We could throw rocks at 'their' carbines.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to provide for "a well regulated militia", which is roughly defined historically as all able bodied adult men between the ages of 18 to 50.
Given that fact, a better arguement could be made for an individual right to militia weapons such as so-called assault rifles, (including automatic versions), then can be made for an individual right to own hunting rifles.
The essence of the 2nd amendment is that it preserves our right resist tyranny.
"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."
Thanks. $200 was a lot of money considering a Thomson was about $75.
How about non-violent felons like tax cheats and perjurers?
• anybody who has ever been in prison (not jail) for an extended period of time, especially for gun crimes.
Again, what about non-violent crimes and if the person is exonerated or the conviction is overtured on appeal after spending a couple of years in the pokey.
• anybody whose medical records show a history of mental illness.
So in addition to the 10 day wait, we must now produce medical records to buy a firearm? And who is going to interpret the medical records and decide whether the person has a mental illness? What about minor depression, anxiety, or obsessive/compulsive disorders?•
anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature.
Anybody on any wanted list is pretty broad. Based upon the amount of junk mail and spam email that I receive, I must be on a lot of wanted lists because everyone seems to want me to buy something from them.
"...I have never tried picking my nose at a 600 rpm cyclical rate..."
When you do, how about giving me a chance to film it? I'm a bit short of cash right now and that sounds like a sure-fire Funniest Videos winner.
anybody who has committed a felony, ever...."
We're already on our way to felony "hate-speech" and I'm sure that spanking your child will soon be felony child abuse. The author's vision is that only politically correct party members would be allowed to own firearms.
Personally, I feel that citizens should be allowed to own the current battlefield rifle used by the Army!
My 'feedback' post at her newspaper:
Meghan,
How sweet of you to decide how to limit my 2nd Amendment
rights.
I would like to limit your 1st Amendment rights after
reading your hyperbolic column.
First, automatic weapons in civilian hands have been
severely limited since 1934. To purchase one today
requires an unbelievable number of hoops, fees and taxes,
out of the reach of most Americans.
Second, there is a thing in the Constitution called 'Due
Process'. Basically, you can not limit the rights of an
individual because some bureaucrat arbitrarily puts their
name on a list. Even if it is a 'terrorist' list. Did you
know that Senator Ted Kennedy turned up on the 'no-fly'
list? And that it took him, a well known Senator over 30
days to get his name off the list?
You have some good ideas and could actually end up being
a good supporter of gun rights, once you get your facts
straight.
In the future, you may want to take the time to call the
NRA or some other knowledgeable source on 2nd Amendment
issues.
Nope sorry, they are not "banned" in the USA.
Full auto firearms are Class III weapons and are legal by Federal law. It's with some of the 50 states that 'banning' occurs.
Now what one has to do and the cost involved in order to get that Class III License (transfer stamp actually) from our buddies at BATFE is another matter, but none the less they are legal.
I could look in my 'purple book' (this year's color) of Laws & Regs but I'm too lazy.
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.