There is an interesting poll over at Lone Ranger's place. It is supposed to show you how you stack up against the various presidential candidates on the various issues.
I took it twice because I misinterpreted a question the first time.
On the first poll, my answer to a free trade question was wrong because of my misinterpretation. For the record, I don't believe we should have unrestricted free trade. I think, in this case, the word "unrestricted" has too broad a definition. I've never had much of a position on NAFTA and CAFTA because I am not very well informed on economics, however, after reading Duncan Hunter's position in his opposition of NAFTA and CAFTA, I would have to say that I am opposed to "Unrestricted" Free Trade, but, as I have already implied, it is not a big issue for me.
On my second try, on one of the questions about gun control, the one about whether assault weapons should be banned, my answer was exactly opposite what I really believe.
I know I risk incurring the wrath of my fellow Conservatives on this one, but I don't believe American citizens need assault weapons.
Don't misunderstand me. I am not against guns. I believe in the second amendment. I believe Americans have the right to bear arms.
I don't personally own a gun, but I am not opposed to gun ownership. I have used guns before, and I am a rather good marksman, but I have never felt the need to own one.
People should be allowed to own guns for sport, and for protection, but I see no reason why anyone needs to own any gun that is capable of firing multiple rounds per second.
I can see where firing a machine gun at a flock of ducks would resit in a successful duck hunt, but that kind of takes the challenge out of the sport, doesn't it?
So, there is no reason to carry an M-16 on a hunting trip, but why not for protection?
Assault weapons were created for one purpose, and one purpose only.
To kill people.
Now, I have no love for criminals who are willfully trying to take the lives of myself and my family, and who try to steal my property. But if I can prevent them from doing so with one small caliber bullet, and I can, why would I need to blow him into an unrecognizable mass of tissue and blood? Wouldn't that be non-essential overkill?
If a criminal can be stopped by wounding them with one shot from a small caliber weapon, why would we need to use a multiple shot weapon using armour piercing shells? Unless a burglar is trying to break into my house with a tank, I think a .22 or a .38 is sufficient for protection.
What do you suppose the odds of a burglar using an armoured vehicle to gain entrance into your domicile are, anyway?
There have been numerous examples given of what could have happened in different situations when shooters have opened fire in schools, malls and businesses across the country. In some cases, there was no one with a gun to stop the shootings, and in some cases there were.
In every case where there was someone with a gun nearby, the shootings were brought to a swift conclusion with a relatively negligible loss of human life.
These shootings could have been just as effectively stopped by simply wounding the shooter with a small caliber handgun or rifle. Still, assault weapons were not needed.
When I was a young adult in Wichita, Kansas, a sniper began shooting people from the 27th floor balcony of the downtown Holiday Inn. He was captured when police fired a shotgun through the wall between balconies wounding him in the legs. The assault was over, and the gunman captured, not killed. Again, assault weapons were not only not needed, they weren't used.
On the other hand, if assault weapons are banned, the only people who have them will be the criminals and then how do we protect ourselves?
The second amendment was written a couple of centuries ago by men who couldn't have foreseen the advent of assault weapons. Would they have written an exemption into the second amendment had they known how far technology would advance in weaponry?
You know? I don't think they would have.
On second thought, what right does the United States have to refuse us the right to own assault weapons? Doesn't the individual American have the right to decide if he needs (or wants) assault weapons or not?
Suddenly, it seems cut and dried to me.
Ok, you have read along while I worked through the process of deciding for myself whether it is constitutional to ban assault weapons. I have decided we should not ban assault weapons as they are a protected right under the second amendment.
So, again, I changed my answer.
Ownership of assault weapons should be allowed. But, I still believe they are not needed.
32 comments:
Just curious: how did machineguns enter the picture? Or for that matter, fully automatic rifles? I thought these were strictly regulated by Federal Law?
The M16, as I understand it, is capable of single, semi-auto, and full-auto fire. The AR-15, the civilian version, is not capable of full-auto fire. I'm aware that people use the AR-15 in hunting small game (I've often heard it referred to as a "varmint rifle.") Might this be the rifle you meant to use in your hunting example?
And armor piercing shells? I know tanks use armor piercing shells. You mean bullets, yes? But I thought armor piercing bullets were only legally available to military and law enforcement, not to civilians.
Overall, though, I agree with your statement that ownership of assault rifles should be allowed.
But I respectfully disagree with your statement that they are not needed.
I think your original line of thinking was correct, Mark.
Look, we all agree (nearly all) that some limits are appropriate. We don't want just anyone to wander down to the Walmart to buy a tank or a nuclear weapon, at least not without a 24 hour waiting period and a background check.
We are all nearly unanimously united in the notion that SOME limits and procedures are appropriate when we're talking weaponry. So, it's not really a matter of IF there should be limits, but what those limits should be.
1. No nuclear weapons in the hands of the citizenry, for instance. Period.
2. No tanks. Period.
3. Hunting rifles are okay.
4. Target-shooting weapons, okay with me.
But somewhere in between the two extremes, we should have limits. I'm okay with saying that, as you note Mark, since no one needs an assault rifle that this would be one that the average citizen can't just go out and buy.
Once we agree that SOME limits are appropriate, what parameters ought we place on weapons? How do we decide what's acceptable and what's not?
Sounds to me you've been misinformed as to what an "assault weapon" is.
It's a term invented by gun banners and used to scare people into taking their side. It sounds better than "guns that look like military weapons but are not" I guess.
See, an assault rifle is a military weapon. It has the ability to fire more than one round per trigger pull, sometimes like a machine gun. (I'm trying to avoid technical jargon, please bear with me).
What gun-grabbers call "assault weapons" are guns that look similar to military weapons, but their function is no different than a Remington Model 750. They are not machine guns. They cannot fire more than one round per trigger pull, nor can they be easily modified to do so.
The purpose of these guns? Just like any other gun, their purpose is to shoot. They can be used for hunting, but most are too underpowered for larger game like deer. I use mine for target practice, others use theirs for competition shooting. These guns are rarely used in crime.
I'm not going to address the rest of the post, seeing as it was based on an incorrect definition, but I do want to put this out there: When the Second Amendment was written, all firearms were considered cutting edge technology.
Care to bet that some in the political class of the day had better firearms than the Continental Army? I, for one, bet they did.
Well, excuse me. As I said, I don't own any guns. So, if I am inaccurate in my descriptions of what an assault weapon is or shells as opposed to bullets, I apologize. I know it is illegal to own a fully automatic gun in America, but I also know it is possible to acquire kits that will convert a semi-automatic to an automatic. I also know ammunition manufacturers sell armour piercing bullets to ordinary gun owners. It isn't right, but they do. My point is: It is a Constitutional right to own guns of all types, and it should be.
But I still say there is no actual need to have automatic weapons, when a single shot rifle or pistol would be sufficient for both protection and hunting. And there is never any need to use automatic guns in either.
I agree 100% that the so-called "assault weapons ban" that Clinton & the anti gun folks launched in 1994 that expired in 2004 should be left where it is in its long overdue grave. I'm glad that you came to that ultimate conclusion.
Just as a small point of clarification on your last comment, fully automatic weapons are not actually illegal, although they are regulated. Civilians have to pass an extra ATF "background check" & pay for a $200 tax stamp. The tax stamp initially was created to keep poor people from being able to afford fully automatic weapons so that only the Rich could have them. However, in 1986 the Democrats realized that $200 was no longer out of reach for the poor people, so they drafted new legislation to ban fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 to place a choke hold on supply level, thus raising prices beyond the grasp of most citizens. To buy one today you're looking at anywhere from $8,000 to $100,000 plus the $200 tax stamp to buy a true fully automatic assault rifle, depending on the make, model, & condition.
The Supreme court in the past has held that sawed off shotguns are not protected by the 2nd Amendment because they are not commonly used by a man or woman in a militia. Full auto assault rifles would be protected by the 2nd Amendment on the other hand because it is a portable rifle that would be used by a common militia man or woman. Atomic weapons as mentioned by Dan would not be protected because that type of weapon would not be carried by a single soldier - that is more of a military owned & controlled item as it takes an entire team to deploy it. It also would not be considered an "Arm" as it would be more of a "Munition" - the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to own bombs.
Mark, the Second Ammendment was not included in the constitution so that we could hunt, nor target shoot, nor collect guns, noe even so that we can protect ourselves against tyranny.
GOVERNMENT tyranny.
Therefore, if the Government has machine guns, Black Hawk Helicopters, M1 Abramms Tanks or an Aircraft Carrier, and I want one and can afford it, then I am Constitutionally guaranteed my right to own one.
It doesn't matter whether you, or Dan, or Senator Kennedy thinks I need one or not.
Any and all Federal laws banning or restricting my right to own or carry a weapon of any kind are extra-constitutional.
(The STATES have the right to ban anything they want, however...)
being ignorant about name-your-subject is no crime, but proposing laws we ought or ought not have on a subject you're admittedly ignorant of makes you look... well, let's not go there, as it's not flattering to you. you'd be better advised, i think, to educate yourself on the subject before pontificating on how it ought to be legislated.
certainly it's possible to acquire conversion kits for turning some semiautomatic weapons into fully automatic ones. if you're willing to break the law, anyway --- such kits are themselves regulated as though they were already machineguns, under federal law. have been for decades, already.
what counts as "armor piercing bullets", logically, must have some connection to what you consider "armor". unfortunately, some folks would want that latter word to include police-issue body armor --- bullet-resistant vests, that is. that's unfortunate, because such vests don't stop your average hunting rifle's average hunting ammo; scarcely slows it down, in fact. therefore, everyday hunting rifle ammunition is "armor piercing" in that sense, and must be if hunters are to kill game humanely.
the legislative compromise is to exclude rifle ammunition from the "armor piercing" classification, and call "rifle ammunition" cartridges that no commonly available pistol has been built to take. therefore, "armor piercing" handgun ammunition is unavailable to civilians, but rifles can be considered "armor piercing" by default yet ammo for them is quite available. we can quibble with this compromise, but it's the one we've got, for now.
(more modern, expensive and uncomfortable military-issue body armor can stand up to middling-caliber rifle rounds, unless they're specifically made to punch through armor. most police departments do not use such vests, to my knowledge.)
as for whether or not a single-shot weapon would really be sufficient for all self-defense and hunting --- you might be best advised not to pontificate on that subject, either, in the same breath as admitting yourself ignorant on the matter of firearms. but if you're correct about it, by all means, let's have our police departments lead the way in giving up their multiple-shot semiautomatic pistols, see what they think of the idea...
Hopefully you won't take this the wrong way, but you are woefully
misinformed on this topic and really should understand it a bit more before you try to write about it.
I know it is illegal to own a fully automatic gun in America,
No, you may own fully automatic weaponry. There's a $200 tax, you have to go through a rigorous background check, fingerprints (even if you already have them on file), written statement from your local constable, and waive your 4th amendment rights, and you can own a machine gun.
but I also know it is possible to acquire kits that will convert a semi-automatic to an automatic
This is a half-truth. There are no "drop in" conversions, meaning you just buy two parts and click them in. But if you have any gun smithing skills, of course you could convert a weapon but it is not as simple as a 30 second session with a screwdriver.
Now, there's a way to simulate automatic fire - You probably have such a kit on your feet right now - shoestrings. You can also use a piece of wood. Do a YouTube search for "bump firing".
I also know ammunition manufacturers sell armour piercing bullets to ordinary gun owners
Yes. They're called 30.06, you know, the standard hunting cartridge. Most rifles will go through soft body armor like butter. Heck, my 10mm handgun is effective through car doors.
As for "need", yes, we need the kind of firepower you are talking about. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or self-protection against criminals, it's about self-protection against a tyrannical government.
At the very least, we, as citizens, should be able to own the exact same type of weaponry as the police without any special taxes, rules, or regulations. Tyranny isn't like Hitler or Pol Pot in the US, it's more like SWAT teams in the smallest towns in rural America.
Finally, a fully automatic 50 BMG with incendiary, tank piercing rounds in my hands is no more dangerous to you or to anyone else than a Nerf slingshot. To deny me the right to own one is to convict me of guilt and require me to prove my innocence.
Is that the way you want the country to run?
OK. Obviously, I don't know a lot about guns. I said I don't own one.
But that doesn't change the fact that the second amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms. I said I support that amendment so we have no arguement.
Except with Dan, of course.
All I said is I don't see a NEED to own anything other than single shot rifles and pistols. And that's my OPINION! So get off my back!
Geeeez, you people remind me of those nerds that write letters to the editor of Superman Comics pointing out little unimportant errors--"On page 3 of edition #789 in panel number two, Clark Kent's suit is orange, but on the very next page, in panel number 4, it's green--What gives?
Read this post this way:
Guns, good. Gun control, bad.
Tug has it right. The second amendment is not about home invasion or duck hunting and never was.
The second amendment is there so that the people, you and I, can make violent, bloody revolution against our government, should the occasion arise that the government tries to take away our rights.
After all, that's what the founding fathers did, and explained their reasons and the philosophy behind it in the Declaration of Independence.
Then they put the Bill of Rights into the Constitution, with the second amendment the guarantor of those rights.
The second amendment gives us the right to be as fully armed as an infantryman or cavalryman--That means, in colonial days, a horse, a sword, a musket with bayonet, and a sidearm.
Today it means: automatic weapons including machine guns, humvees, assault helicopters, and rpg's.
It's really pretty simple.The second amendment is all nouns and verbs--can't be misinterpreted except by those who would abolish it if they could, but know they don't have the support to do that.--(Would take a constitutional Convention) --Rick
Geeeez, you people remind me of those nerds that write letters to the editor of Superman Comics pointing out little unimportant errors
"Nerds"?
No need to resort to name-calling, sir.
As for pointing out "little unimportant errors"--unfortunately, the errors here aren't unimportant. It's misinformation and we simply want to make sure that the correct information goes out there to the general public. Rustmeister, Dustin, and Robb have merely pointed out a few bits that needed clarification.
And I do agree: "Guns, good. Gun control, bad."
Ace, I didn't say those commenters are nerds. Re-read my comment. I said the people who write to editors of comics to point out unimportant errors are nerds.
I did imply, however, that people who point out my poor choice of words when describing various arms are detracting from my main point which is this:
The second amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms regardless of size, and/or firepower of the arms. I suppoort that right, because I support the Constitution. I simply said I dont think large high powered arms are not necessary, and that is my OPINION, which, by the way, is also guaranteed by the Constitution.
Regarding your opinion: you are most certainly entitled to it. I won't say otherwise. I merely commented that I respectfully disagree with your opinion and I also agree to disagree.
Regarding the "pointing out" of poor word choices: We're simply trying to make sure that the correct descriptions are used so that the spread of misinformation is halted. I don't see this as unimportant. On the contrary, I think it is very important. Joe Public is grossly misinformed when it comes to "fully automatic assault weapons" and the like. We're just trying to educate.
The reason you're getting this reaction is because people who don't support the Second Amendment use similar language on purpose.
They want people to think guns are as scary and powerful as they see on TV. They're not. Almost any gunblogger has a post on the subject.
It's not about busting your chops. You said you were uninformed, I (and I assume, the others) simply want to fix that for you. Or at least, get you pointed in the right direction.
The information is out there, you have but to look.
But, saying I don't NEED a certain firearm is (to me) just like saying I don't need a Corvette when a Hyundai will do. It's about choice, and the responsibilities that come with it.
Hey Mark; you've been lied to, A LOT, and you believed it because you didn't know any better.
Happens to all of us.
But here's a question for you.
A machine gun fires 600-1200 rounds per minute; with one squeeze of the trigger Of course unless it's a belt fed (like they mount on hummers) it will only shoot 20 or 30 rounds without stopping. Then you have to take a few seconds and change the magazine.
In those same few seconds, on just about any modern gun in existence; I (or you for that matter) can also pull the trigger several times, empty the 20 or 30 round magazine, and reload.
There is no such thing as a lethal piece of metal. The lethality is in the person who uses it.
Hey Chris. Thanks for your input. You said you have a question for me. What's the question?
I've been lied to? What lie are you referring to? The lie that the second amendment guarantees our right to bear arms? Because that was my conclusion. Or didn't you read that far?
And Rust, you say, "But, saying I don't NEED a certain firearm is (to me) just like saying I don't need a Corvette when a Hyundai will do. It's about choice, and the responsibilities that come with it."
I say, "Huh?" Can you provide any facts that support the idea that anyone NEEDS a Corvette? Can you provide any facts that you NEED a machine gun?
Perhaps you should read your Dictionary. Read the definition of the word "need". You seem to have it confused with the word, "desire".
I would concede the fact that some people NEED a 4 wheel drive vehicle based on the chance that one might need to drive through rough terrain, but a Corvette would be not be the least suited to that scenario. In fact, a Hyundai would be more adaptable to that environment than a Corvette.
I cannot conceive of a time when a machine gun would be any more effective, one on one, than a single shot gun of any type. Now, if you are facing multiple attackers who are heavily armed, I would understand a NEED to be likewise armed. How often have you been confronted with that, and how often do you expect that in the future?
You know, one well placed round from a single shot .22 pistol will kill a thief burglar, or attacker just as dead as it would if you totally obliterate his head with a torrent of automatic weapon fire. Or do you have a lucid argument to that?
But you are right about one thing. It is about choice. If you want to brandish a rocket launcher, you have every right to do so. So what is your argument? That owners of a .22 pistol don't have as much responsibility as you do?
I would submit that your obsession with high powered automatic rapid fire guns suggest a morbid fascination with death and destruction, and as such, makes you dangerous and the very kind of person the bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters are seeking to target with their anti-gun legislation.
Please confine your responses to common sense. Otherwise, don't bother to comment.
Mark, this topic is like pushing the big reactor button. As soon as I started reading your post I knew you'd get extremist reactions. To many, Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment hold no distinction.
You are asking a question likened to this: Are you for or against abortion? Then following it up with terms as to when it is okay and when it is not. To folks who are passionate about about this, there is no distinction.
Many folks can not, or will not, go into any gray areas on topics like this. They often feel offended when forced to do so. Even if you can see the gray lines yourself.
In the end, nobody is right, nobody is wrong. It is opinion. For those who do name-calling, they are of a different species. Nothing can be said to them or even should be.
Don't you love America!!!! We can feel what we want, believe what we want, say what want and live our lives within the bounds of the laws without persecution. That, Mark, is your right and I am glad you have it.
As for this woman, I will never waiver from my right to bear arms. If I act irresponsibly with them, then I will face the consequences. I would never dream of banning weapons, of any calibre, from any American unless they have been convicted of a felonious act.
You know, one well placed round from a single shot .22 pistol will kill a thief burglar, or attacker just as dead as it would if you totally obliterate his head with a torrent of automatic weapon fire. Or do you have a lucid argument to that?
Why does it have to be a choice between a single-shot .22 or belt-fed automatic weapon? Why not something in between? Like, say, a Model 1911 pistol with 8 rounds of .45, or 9 rounds of 10mm? As for the single round of .22, if you want to bet your life on that round's ability to stop an attacker no matter his size or any other condition, be my guest, but as for me I'd prefer to have a little more room for error -- notwithstanding those with little to no experience of firearms who ask asinine questions like "who NEEDS more than that?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T0SKlJFpeo
The internet- which the founders didn't anticipate either, is a wonderful education tool.
I'm sick and tired of having my words taken out of context, and twisted just so you gun nuts can use them to insult me.
Geeeez, I bet you guys jerk off to gun magazines, don't you?
If you idiots had read my post, you would have seen that I am on your side, as distasteful as that is for me.
So, it doesn't matter what your particular favorite weapon is, you have the Constitutional right to own it as I stated plainly in my post.
If I was as obssessed with ANYTHING as you mental defectives are with guns, I would have had the good sense to commit myself.
Now, you can respond if you like but it won't appear as a comment on my blog, because I reserve the right to delete all of your comments, so waste your time if you like, but I am done with you.
And by the way, bloodthirsty warmongering Texan, your user name says all I need to know about you and your buddies. Why don't you all go find a war somewhere and lease yourselves out? Maybe then you will get your bloodlust out of your system.
One more comment than I am really done:
I just viewed the video to which anonymous posted a link. It is a video of some kid being taught to kill from a distance.
What is the point of that video? Anonymous says it is educational. Maybe I missed the point. Other than the possiblility that showing me that people teach kids how to shoot rapid fire rifles, of which I was already aware, I am no more educated than before.
You people really have no concept of reality at all, do you?
Here's a news flash for you:
People in the real world, who have lives, don't spend all their free time learning how to kill people.
There may be a time when such knowledge will be the difference between life and death, and at that time, I feel I have enough knowledge of guns and shooting to be able to defend myself adequately. As I said, I have fired guns before, and I am a rather good marksman. I do not own a gun myself but there are guns in my house( a 9, a .22, a shotgun, two rifles), and rest assured, I have no problem with aiming them at an intruder or an attacker and squeezing the trigger if I NEED to.
Again, Dr. Strangegun, I never said any weapons should be banned, so take your argument elsewhere. You are preaching to the choir here. And for God's sake! Read the posts before you argue with them!
My very cheap, fairly disjounted, somewhat uneducated on this topic, $0.02.
I don't think that just because I don't always understand others' desire to own certain guns means it's ok for me to ban them.
To my knowledge, assault weapons are not commonly used in crimes. I wonder if this is because when robbing a pedestrian or a convenience store, or even during a drug buy, any old pistol will do.
Last year there was a Virginia Tech style shooting at a shopping mall here in Salt Lake City. The shooter was prevented from killing countless more people because there was an off duty cop there with his gun. His return fire caused the shooter to stop searching for defenseless citizens to kill, allowing many to escape. The incident, as tragic as it was, could have been far more so had there not been someone else in the mall with a gun, and the knowledge to use it. I think what happened there is noteworthy and deserves some thought. Also of note is that the shooter acquired his guns and ammunition illegally. Afterwards, law enforcement was able to track the sale to the seller and prosecute him. But that didn't help any the day of the shooting.
I only recently have begun to be interested in firing guns. I find it to be very enjoyable. I'm beginning to understand why some people like to own so many guns. They are a fascinating piece of technology, and a challenging test of skill. I have a feeling my interest and ownership of guns will increase over time.
It would seem that, like in just about everything else in politics, there are many nuances and twistings of descriptions and definitions used in gun control debates. It deserves further thought and study, but for the moment I think I fall on the no gun control side of things, even when it comes to assault weapons.
I'm sick and tired of having my words taken out of context, and twisted just so you gun nuts can use them to insult me.
Wow, Mark. You've been Conservatized. That is, you've spoken a profane word as defined by a segment of The Conservaterati and thus you must be punished, even if it takes twisting of words and maligning of character.
Welcome to my world.
Dan, for taking my words out of context and twisting them, you make these gun fanatics look like rank amatures.
????
I have taken YOUR words out of context and twisted them??
Here I was sympathizing with you and you accuse me of something that you can't and won't prove.
You're welcome, dude.
Forget about what an assault weapon is. Forget about what is the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. The core of this discussion is that when you give the government the power to take away even ONE of your freedoms, you give them the power to take away all of them. Liberals should fight just as hard as conservatives do to retain the rights to worship and bear arms. Maybe you think it's just hunky-dory that the government is preying on gun owners now, but you won't think that when they come after a freedom you hold dear. Take a look at Britain. That country is quickly becoming fascist, with government eyes and ears prying into every aspect of people's lives. They have even made it a crime to defend yourself against criminals. If every American doesn't fight for our every right, that's where we are headed.
Kemo Sabe speaks not with forked tongue.
I recall reading that around the 1790's, it was mandated (I believe) that every law abiding man should own and know how to use the most state of the art firearm he could afford. Nowadays, that would include fully automatic weapons such as machine guns. I think it's not too much to believe that men as intelligent as the founders didn't have the foresight to see advances in weaponry that might come down the pike. They surely were witnesses to advances of all sorts during their lifetimes, even if those advances advanced more slowly than today. But weaponry always advanced to a more effeciently lethal version than what came before. The idea was always to protect the self, protect the family, protect the property and protect the community. And hey, these here shootin' irons make huntin' a breeze!
I have no problem with machine guns being available to law-abiding citizens. What thug, be he of the street or of the government, wouldn't have more respect for the citizenry if they were possibly armed so well?
Really, I just read the 2nd amendment and I didn't see anything in there about owning military weapons, assault rifles.
I did see that the year after the assault rifle ban went into effect, violent crime decreased and the year it expired it increased.
I do remember the 2nd amendment making the excuse for the common citizen owning a rifle and it had something to do with the fact that we didn't have a military and needed for our citizens to be armed to defend us against the British, French and all the INdians we were trying to exterminate as well as for food.
We are not violating the second amendment by banning machine guns, we are honoring the 2nd amendment by allowing people to own shotguns.
I mean alcohol is legal but that doesn't mean you can serve it until 8am in the morning and then drive while you are drunk. There are even limits to free speech. If there are limits to the first amendment, why not limits to the 2nd amendment?
"arms" in 1789 were mainly single shot musket balls which were accurate up to a few hundred feet and fired about 3 rounds per minute and were relatively hard to conceal. A Mac 10 can fire around 1000 rounds per minute and you can take it anywhere. Not exactly what Jefferson had in mind.
The meanings of words have changed throughout the years. For instance, "property" no longer applies to black people. "All men created equal" no longer applies to WASP men as it did then.
ACe:
And what do you NEED your assault rifle for? Besides defending the branch davidian compound?
"I can see where firing a machine gun at a flock of ducks would resit in a successful duck hunt, but that kind of takes the challenge out of the sport, doesn't it?
So, there is no reason to carry an M-16 on a hunting trip, but why not for protection?"
You understand assault weapons aren't machine guns, right? I get the distinct impression from the tone of your post that you don't actually understand the concept and legal definition of "assault weapon", and if you're going to take a stance on the issue, you need to know these things.
Post a Comment