Owning firearms should be a protected right (It's not what you think)

The Daily Mississippian ^ | September 30, 2005 | Meghan Blalock

[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.

[so_real]

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)

I read that and had to repeat it. Some folks just need to wake up and smell the coffee. Thanks.

[King Prout]

*bows*

it is so obvious it should never need be explicitly stated.
sadly, so many the people have been on the kool-aid intravenously since birth...

[Travis McGee]

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.

I beg to differ.

[metalurgist]

There also were no carbines.

But there were cannons and grapeshot. Old time assault weapons. Ha Ha Ha.

[ncountylee]

The first shot is to stop the person, the follow ons are to protect me and stop appeals.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Automatic weapons are over rated unless you are talking about machine guns like the M-240. Rifles like the M-16 on full auto simply waste good ammunition if you are over 20 meters away. Full automatic has such few practical purposes with shoulder fired rifles.

7.62 x 51 M-240

Now sound suppressed rifles are something very practical. Too bad they are heavily regulated.

[billnaz]

Yeah, automatic weapons do consume a lot of ammo, but they sure are fun. I still remember sitting in the gunner's seat of a tank and watching through the periscope as the tracers from my coax went downrange. Then it was up to the commander's hatch to press the butterfly on old Ma Deuce. Later on came other weapons -- the M60 machine gun, the AK-47, and the M3 "grease gun, among others.

Yep, hosing lead is wasteful, but it is the most fun a guy can have wearing clothes.