I reckon that's why God made Prozac.
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.
I reckon that's why God made Prozac.
At the time the First Amendment was written, the state of the art in printing was the Gutenburg press. Radio, TV, telephony, internet connectivity, computers, high speed printing, graphical design software and other improvement were not around. Now you can spew BS worldwide with the click of a mouse. Technology moves on in the press and in firearms.
She is only 5 feet tall and weighs 100 lbs.
This guy would not allow her to own a gun. The reason? She has been treated for anxiety for several years. Takes medication. I would trust her with my life or with the lives of my children tho. In fact I and quite a few others use her to baby sit.
Still she has been treated for mental illness and this guy thinks she is dangerous.
Liberals don't get this. Then again, neither do some supposed "conservatives".
She doesn't have a clue.
"...criminals would probably still be able to get their hands on them (although it might be a bit more difficult)."
About as easy as the dope she bought this morning and has been smoking.
Navel-gazing, lefty gun-grabber attempting (painfully) to appear reasonable: "guns are not evil . . . A weapon that . . . serves no real purpose in our society."
& blah blah blah.
or spitballs...
Watch out for this one, folks! They're attempting to slowly redefine this! Is is not normally a declaration by a court that one is mentally ill that will prevent them from legally owning a gun?
Rediculous, with apology to O'Reily, no not rediculous, they should be highly respected.
As far as outlawing certain people, all for it. People with mental unstability should have a greater barrier to gun ownership than someone with no record whatsoever. This provision of course can be misused and so any personal ban should be subject to due process.
But the selection of certain weapons for outlawing is rediculous. The government should not be in the business of deciding what feature makes a weapon unlawful. This has long been a tactic of the gun control crowd. Think of something that makes a gun more nasty, (long barrel, short barrel, penetration, accurate range, concealibility, rate of fire, type of bullet, ... the list is long, because of the use of this type of attack.)
Thus as someone in support of the second amendment, I have to conclude that selection of features in firearms that make them illegal is an "infringement" and what part of infringement don't you understand?
"This guy would not allow her to own a gun. The reason? She has been treated for anxiety for several years. Takes medication. I would trust her with my life or with the lives of my children tho. In fact I and quite a few others use her to baby sit."
That's dumb as hell. I wonder when they'll decide you can't own a firearm if you've been diagnosed and treated for ADHD? I was back in public school even though I don't think it's a real disorder, just laziness and a lack of self-discipline (amazing how my ADHD sypmtoms "disapeared" when I pulled my head out of my ass and actually forced myself to work hard). Wonder if it'll come to that? Sorry, but I already have my guns and ain't giving them up.
• anybody who has committed a felony, ever...."
So the true nazi-like regimentation mind-set of the liberal way of thinking is peeking out from under the tarp at us.
Once this type of regulation is put in place, the liberal simply re-defines "felony" as anything from driving without your seatbelt to staying out late.
Nothing gets a liberal's juices flowing as much as the prospect of having control over other people.
I would never shoot a person with the intent of injuring that person. If I feel I have to shoot someone it's because their actions are bad enough that I have to end their life.
A weapon that shoots bullets at a ridiculously rapid rate serves no real purpose in our society, other than killing people
Hypocrite. A plain dumb liberal one.
Wrong. Machine guns manufactured before 1986 that are registered under federal law are legal to own in most states.
The sort of firearm the author evidently refers to is a Class III instrument which is already heavily regulated. Relatively - no, very - few people possess these legally inasmuch as they are expensive and the licensing and transfer process extensive. Of course, criminals who can find them on the black market are unencumbered by this. That is, after all, the point of gun control.
There is an underlying attitude here that could probably use some adjustment - it is that the government is by default in the position of "allowing" this or that or the other thing, as if it were in the business of "allowing" freedom of speech or lawful assembly. It is, in fact, not "allowing" any such thing, but formally prohibited from legislation restricting it. That's quite a different thing.
OK Meghan, here is the argument from a second amendment viewpoint: The purpose they serve in our society is for law-abiding citizens to be as well-armed as the criminals and gang-bangers, and for the law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves against enemies, including if necessary a tyrannical government.
Now tell us this Meghan, if you so readily argue that rights as enumerated within the bill of rights "shall not be infringed" can be curtailed at the whim of government, then under what circumstances should people lose other rights such as voting, the right to own property, freedom of speech and association, etc.?
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.