Posted on 09/30/2005 10:51:39 AM PDT by holymoly
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.
Here, here! Well said!
"You can buy autos in this country. You just have to have lots of money and proper licensing."
I just buy my full-auto "junk-guns" from guys who deal them out of their cars along with chainguns, grenades, Phalanx, F-15 fighters, Aegis missile cruisers, and the lollipops that we all know FFL dealers all sell to anyone in low-income neighborhoods.
sarcasm/off
Wrong.
Automatic weapons have been "controlled" through taxation through the BATFE via the 1928 National Firearms Act. For $200, a individual or corporation can recieve a federal tax stamp authorizing maintaining an automatic weapon. (Subject to state and local laws and successful background checks.)
I am amazed at how many FReepers are referring to Meghan as "he".
"Actually they technically aren't, just very heavily regulated. We should loosen those regulations, too."
Try "Remove those regulations, too." After all, if the Founding Fathers intended us to be able to stand up to our government, which is most certainly armed with automatic weapons, we should be able to have them, too. In fact, under the Constitution, we ARE. Single-shot rifles, shotguns, and pistols were the most common in that age, but not by any means the ONLY weapons available.
>> guns dont 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]
>> 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. <<
Yes, there was also no such thing as movies, blogs, radio, television, cable. I'm sure the author believes we can scrap the first amendment now that there is. The fact that technology makes a tool more effective is not an argument for eliminating that tool.
You win the "Best Sarcastic Reply to a Post" reward! LOL
I also tend to repeat myself. :^D
"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.
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.