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.
Your post is as easy to understand as the second amendment. Few words, to the point, and simply stated.
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
Automatics, so long as they were not manufactured after 1986, are legal to own. It was just a little gun ban by Reagan.
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
No they haven't it is just rather expensive & involved process to acquire one legally . Requiring several levels of background checks from the state & federal govt, written permission from the chief law enforcement official in your locality, $200.00 transfer tax to transfer the ownership of the weapon from the NFA class 3 dealer to you, also a $1000.00 license that is only good for 1 year then it drops down to a couple hundred dollars annually IIRC. That doesn't include the price of the weapon which can be in the 5 figure range very easily.
An interesting piece, if one ignores tha fact that the writer obviously has no understanding whatsoever of existing gun laws.
liberal who believes....[insert hypocracy here]
to be a modern liberal negates any individual rights. This idiot was only speaking of "collective rights"
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.
RIOT DISPERSAL, NUMB-NUTS.
Sometimes perps run in packs you know (or did you not watch any Katrina/L.A.Riots/whathaveyou footage???)
This doesn't even TOUCH on the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment (controlling our government's excesses through the application of continuous well-founded fear of the people to the background subconscious of our elected representatives and the members of the bureaucracy)
hehhehheh... I love this type of lampoon. well done.
Thanks. The only chunk that I overlooked was plagarism. I just did not want to add another bullet point. For the life of me, I will never understand the nimnoids that want to bust up the BOR and the constitution.
"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"
You showed just how gun-ignorant that Ole Miss liberal airhead really is. If somebody is coming at me I won't shoot to wound. I'll aim for center of mass. Dead or alive, makes no difference, as long as they cease and desist their hostile action.
Try "Remove those regulations, too."
Yeah, you're right. I should've chosen better word usage.
I suppose the guy would have a real fit if I emptied the magazine. On the other hand, he gives me an excuse. I was aiming for the arms but I had to keep shooting because I kept missing and hitting him in the head.
let us not forget that the colonial militiaman possesed a weapon that was the exact equivalent of the arm that the Brit Lobsterback infantry soldier of the day had, the Brown bess musket, and many had technologically superior rifled muskets. The founders would expect the right to bear arms to today to include the ordinary selective fire shoulder arms used by today's individual soldier.
I don't know...to quote Tim Wilson(comic) after that first couple of bullets his you, do you really care about thirty or forty that come after it?
Pesonally, I can't figure out why anyone would want one, but I really don't care if they have them. My only worry in that respect would be the knowledge they have of their use. Various guns and their known impact(figuratigely and litterly) helped some of the older realtives of mine, safe.
"Pesonally, I can't figure out why anyone would want one"
That sounds like a gun-grabber's argument. I own semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines because I can. If I could afford select-fire weapons I would own those too.
If I'm not mistaken the citizens of Great Britain had their firearms taken away incrementally. First one type of firearm was outlawed, then another type was outlawed. Before they knew it the free citizens of Great Britain were completely disarmed. And no longer free.
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.