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.
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 don’t 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.