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.
Yea! Screw "due process". Who needs it? </sarcasm>
Unfortunately, in these modern times, the pen is no longer the most powerful weapon; the automatic rifle has taken its place.
I'll leave it to someone else to address this chronic bed-wetters' hyperbole regarding "automatic weapons".
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" .. except in the following cases which I think make a lot of sense: blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah
automatic weapons have been banned in the usa for decades.
Thank-you for your permission, d*ckhead.
How would one mow down legions of UN Blue helmets, chinese, or rioters without an automatic??? If some folks dont own full autos, ambivilent whiners wont have anyone to protect them.
There also were no carbines.
The author forgets that the 2nd Amendment is in place to defend the republic from foreign and domestic tyranny. You can't fight invading troops or domestically trained thugs effetively with pistols.
"Is the government limiting the second amendment right to bear arms if it says to someone: “No, you cannot own a gun”?
No."
I wonder if he would feel the same with the govnment limiting the first amendment and forcing him to be sensored and his writing not allowed to be published.
Four conditions on owning a gun? Let's start with those four conditions applying to anyone who writes, speaks or otherwise communicates through "the media." That probably wouldn't fly with all of those anti-gun writers. That "history of mental illness" would be a real tricky thing to handle.
He missed one.
Democrats should never be allowed to buy or own a firearm of any kind. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions, and they fail to hold other people accountable for what actions they take.
If the author knew more about guns, I suppose he'd specify an allowable caliber too, since I notice he uses the phrase "to injure an intruder" instead of to kill and intruder.
Maybe everyong should be just be allowed to own a single shot pellet gun.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492727/posts
Kashmiri Women Take Up Arms For Self-Protection
Middle East Times ^ | September 23, 2005 | Prakriiti Gupta
Posted on 09/28/2005 8:05:16 AM EDT by Fun Bob
MARAH, Jammu and Kashmir -- Women in Jammu and Kashmir have now picked up guns against Islamic militants to protect their homes.
At least 30 Muslim women in the disputed region to the north of India and Pakistan have constituted a separate all-women Village Defense Committee (VDC) and are operating with the Indian army in the forested mountains of Surankote in the Poonch district bordering the Pakistani side of Kashmir to fight militants.
"Now militants do not dare enter our village," said 18-year-old Nishat Bee, the youngest member of the group. Her companion, however, corrects her by saying, "In fact militants have not been this way since we picked up guns against them."
On a visit to the twin villages of Marah and Kulali, one finds tall, slender Muslim women sporting rifles on their shoulders while grazing cattle alone in deep forests or standing on top of the roofs of their homes to keep a watch on militants.
"I am proud to fight a Jihad [holy war] against marauders who have cheated us of our dignity and honor," says Shamima Akhter, the 30-year-old commander of this particular women's group.
"Militants who would force us to provide them shelter, food and at times to entertain them physically were harassing us physically and mentally. If we opposed them they would commit rapes or kill our family members. We wanted to confront them and the only way to do it was to acquaint ourselves with the basic functioning of guns and grenades," she added.
The majority of the men of this border belt work in Gulf countries leaving their women, children and elderly back in remote mountainous villages, the access to majority of which is through hours of rough walks that make the women soft targets.
It is common practice for the militants to seek shelter, food or seek sexual favors from these women, and in case of refusal, it is not unusual to rape or even kill them, using locals to work as porters on gunpoint in villages.
The Kashmir conflict traces its roots to 1947, when India and Pakistan simultaneously gained their independence from Britain. Pakistan was formed from the majority Muslim part of British territory, and India from the majority Hindu part.
The state of Jammu-Kashmir, with a majority Muslim population but a Hindu ruler, chose to be a part of India in a process that many believed to be illegal. Since then, India and Pakistan have fought three major wars over Kashmir, and close to 1 million have died in the violence. In 1989 the Kashmiri independence movement turned militant and began to promote the independence of Kashmir from India through violent means.
The VDCs were set up in Jammu and Kashmir in the mid-nineties following a number of massacres of the innocent inhabitants of the troubled region's far-flung villages. As there were no police or army pickets near these inaccessible villages, the Indian security forces provided military training to locals, and equipped them with weapons and wireless sets to counter militant attacks. At least 450 such VDCs are now functional in Jammu and Kashmir.
The foundation of this first women's VDC goes back to March 2003, when local Muslim priest Mir Hussain was killed by a group of mainly foreign Lashkar E-Tayyaba militants when he tried to stop the rape of his wife.
The priest's brother, Fazal Hussain, returned from the Gulf where he had been working, and with the help of the Indian army constituted the first ever-Muslim village committee in the border district of Poonch.
This group helped the Indian army destroy the biggest militant hideout in the famous Hill Kaka bowl in the mountains of Surankote in July 2003. At least 150 foreign militants were killed in the operation.
To avenge those killings, a Lashkar group in April 2004 attacked Kulali village and killed 14 women and children while the men were out on an operation.
Later, in June 2004, the militants executed another attack, which was repulsed by a woman, Khatoon Begum, who had learned to use a 303 Rifle from her son. Although she died in the attack her act helped save at least a dozen members of her family from Islamic guerrillas.
"Khatoon Begum's daring act lead to the foundation of all Muslim women VDC. We were supported by our husbands and fathers and thus trained ourselves in the operation of 303 rifles, SLRs, grenade throwing and other military aspects of how to react and repulse a militant attack", stated another women fighter, Shahnaz.
Tahira Begum, wife of VDC member Tahir Hussain Choudhary and mother of three says, "we want to live with honor and dignity and [for that] we have waged a war against these gun trotters [who are] a blot on the name of Islam.
"It is an amazing feeling to hold a gun in one's hand for a noble cause," Begum added. "On several occasions in the past eight months I have come across jihadis in the forests who are scared and who go into hiding. I am proud to be fighting a jihad against these marauders who cheated us of our dignity and honor."
Trained in the firing, basic handling and cleaning of weapons, as well as in battle craft and field craft drills, nearly every month these women go to nearby army camps to polish up on their shooting skills and to update their knowledge of weapons used commonly by terrorists.
"They have an extraordinary learning zest," said Indian army Public Relations Officer R.K Chhibber.
"We check on their fire ranges and other technical aspects almost every month. They also assist us in vital operations."
"automatic weapons have been banned in the usa for decades."
Actually they technically aren't, just very heavily regulated. We should loosen those regulations, too.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here:
IIRC While not banned per se, they are heavily regulated by the BATFE (as Class III weapons).
"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. "
Yes. Yes, yes, yes.
'Single shot' guns were the 'weapon of the day' and were perfectly legal to own (cannons too).
Since that time, 'automatic weapons' and 'semi-automatic' weapons have become the 'weapon of the day'.
Liberals are always talking about the 'evolving' Constitution. But when it comes the Second Amendment, they just seem to want to leave that in the 'past'.
You can buy autos in this country. You just have to have lots of money and proper licensing.
Or bolt actions, smokeless powder... the list goes on and on.
"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. "
Well sorry buddy but back in the Revolution they merely had muzzle loaders...By your logic we should only own Muzzle loaders and Flint locks. Semi Auto was not around back then either...
Any combat vet who has had his buddie's brains blown all over him...or one that saved his entire platoon who ended up being ordered to or needed to see any mental health professional during his/her enlistment or post enlistment ever diagnosed with PTSD?...including POWs and the severely wounded?
How about rape victims...taking into see mental health professionals....after having been in touch with the system they now have 'a record'...they should not be allowed to own weapons for self defense...even after having been raped and their rapist is still on the loose...or never convicted..or worse is now out of prison and looking for a little payback and whatever else he can take?
Once a lib always a lib
Just never quite get it...
Always looking for Govt. control to solve all the problems they seem to have with free people..who they see as out of step with their 'personal opinion' versions of reality which they also believe should be the only reality
imo
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.