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".
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Sounds like she would like to have the 2nd Amendment restrict us to owning nothing but antique black powder flintlocks, and that we should only shoot to “injure”, not to kill.
Yeah shes a liberal.. LoL..
The second amendment is to make REVOLUTION LEGAL.. when "liberals" take over..
Its not about the right to target shoot or the right to HUNT..
Its about the right to REVOLT with prejudice..
Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose.
not really. its about the same action. stick your finger in the hole, curl finger slightly and pull back.
besides, my AR, just like any AKs, SKSs, FALs, CETMEs, et al, can spray bullets just about as fast by pulling the trigger multiple times as they could full auto.
personally, i don't like full auto weapons. i don't see the point, i find them too hard to control. i prefer the simple accuracy of a well built bolt rifle. but i also think that if i wanted one, i should be able to get one easier than i could now (like if my fiance keeps pestering me about getting a thompson, i want to be able to get it.)
In case anybody doesn't know, The Daily Mississippian is the campus newspaper of the University of Mississippi, also known as Ole Miss. The person who wrote the article is an ignorant airhead, who probably only heard of the Second Amendment yesterday. Does she even know which end of a firearm the round exits? I doubt it. I wonder what she's majoring in at Ole Miss. It's probably cheerleading or majorette.
The dumb broad obviously didn't do her research for the article, or she would know that ownership of selective fire and fully automatic weapons is already regulated out the wazoo by all sorts of government red tape and regulations. Prices for those types of firearms are sky-high, but even if you can afford one it takes a while to take possession. There is an extensive background check on everyone who purchases a firearm of that type.
With regard to semi-automatic weapons, they are legal to own by law-abiding citizens. I have a gun safe full of firearms of that type, and I haven't killed anybody with one yet. I guess the stupid broad would like us to have nothing more than what our forefathers carried at Lexington and Concord.
The article is typical of the nonsense that regularly emanates from the weak link in the Mississippi university system.
And in case anybody has any doubt as to which university is the best in the state, here it is: Go Dawgs!
Owning firearms is a protected right.
"A weapon that shoots bullets at a ridiculously rapid rate serves no real purpose in our society, other than killing people."
Duh. Really? And if you have a weapon that shoots bullets but does NOT kill people then you should get one that can kill people because that is precisely the point.
Stupid, effin' liberals.
I am amazed at how many FReepers are referring to Meghan as "he".
>> “guns don’t kill people; people kill people in debates about gun control. <<
That's not true. I've been tempted to, but I never have.
(Or is there a quote mark missing?)
>>. 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. <<
I have ADD and brain damage. (go figure, right?) On what basis is that relevant to my being able to own a gun. And does the author really mean to suggest that the government can have no interest in keeping an eye on someone, without mandating that his Constitutional rights should be taken away?
>>. 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. <<
I have ADD and brain damage. (go figure, right?) On what basis is that relevant to my being able to own a gun. And does the author really mean to suggest that the government can have no interest in keeping an eye on someone, without mandating that his Constitutional rights should be taken away?
How delightfully fascist of Meghan, bless her heart.
[spit]
"A weapon that shoots bullets at a ridiculously rapid rate serves no real purpose in our society, other than killing people. "
All other guns are for making people giggle.
How about we talk about the first amendment as it pertains to liberal conclusions of the second amendment? The first amendment was designed for redress of grievances to the government and to help ensure the people get to discuss without consequence those grievances. So, if liberals want to restrict guns to what they believe the constitution was written to address, perhaps they would also like the first to be valid if and only if they are speaking to the government about a complaint they may have. All other forms of communication are prohibited unless licensed.
If you shoot someone in self defense and injure them, it's OK. If you kill them it's wrong. OK Makes sense to me /sarc
Boy oh boy.. the dems are sure stepping up the gun control talk now that they are feeling a bit more "confident"
Thats why its more important than ever to protect this right.
I could not help but brush this up a little:
Make no bones about it: I am a conservative who believes that the press in themselves are not evil.
Are you shocked? You shouldn’t be. Some liberals like to present the cliché counterargument that “The pen is mightier than the sword” in debates about free speech. However, the question still remains: Exactly what argument do they think they are countering?
It is not the “conservative stance” that the presses in themselves have the ability to assassinate character 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 the printing press cannot really have ethical qualities, one way or another. Thus, the press cannot be evil, but they cannot be good either.
What is evil is a government that allows people to buy printing presses – offset and automatic electronic ones at that - who should not even be allowed to touch one.
Is the government limiting the first amendment right to freedom of speech if it says to someone: “No, you cannot own a printing press”?
No.
People who should not be allowed to own printing presses:
• anybody who has committed a felony, ever. Exceptions could be made for people who have clearly “recovered” and wanted a printing press to protect their character.
• anybody who has ever been in prison (not jail) for an extended period of time, especially for slander, defamation or hate speech 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. No formal indictment and conviction is necessary. As long as you are on any list; no publishing rights for you.
Do I think it is acceptable for a “normal” citizen to own a printing press for the purposes of self-aggrandizement and self-promotion? Yes. In all likelihood, even if the government illegalized ALL publishing means, 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 publishing suite, legally or illegally, I should be able to own one in case he or she breaks into my house with the intent to libel and slander me or my family.
This right, however, should not extend into the realm of automatic electronic media. The electronic media must have a child safety feature, and it should be made illegal for that person to re-sell his or her electronic media tools to whomever he or she chooses because you never know what kind of psychotic individual might then be the owner of the electronic media tools.
Also, when the founding fathers wrote that all American citizens should have the right to free press and speech, there was no such thing as an automatic electronic media tool. Presses that printed more than one block of text per pull of the handle were not around. Now, there are electronic media tools that spray Megabits easier than you can pick your nose.
Should these automatic electronic media tools be legal?
NO. No, no, no.
If anybody can make a good argument as to why such media tools 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.
An electronic media tool that shoots images and words at a ridiculously rapid rate serves no real purpose in our society, other than killing people’s character. If somebody wants to own a webcam for the purpose of ridiculing an intruder in his or her home who may be threatening his or her character, I am not opposed to that. Should a person be able to own an automatic High-Definition studio for the same purposes? Absolutely not. It is unnecessary, and you are more likely to kill the intruder’s character rather than just ridicule him or her, which is also unnecessary.
So, in conclusion, the media are not evil. The acts they commit – via a person pulling the print lever – can be evil, but they are not always. I think it is always wrong to kill another person’s character, regardless of what they have done. But it is not wrong to ridicule one who is trying to ridicule you or your family. Automatic electronic media tools are just ridiculous and should be completely outlawed.
Unfortunately, in these modern times, the musket is no longer the most powerful weapon; the automatic electronic media has taken its place.
and there's the camel's nose... didn't take long for it to slip under the tent flap, did it? I shall not bother to read the rest