Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Owning firearms should be a protected right (It's not what you think)
The Daily Mississippian ^ | September 30, 2005 | Meghan Blalock

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: automatic; bang; banglist; bedwetter; ccw; colt; exaggerate; exaggeration; guncontrol; gunrights; guns; handwringer; hyperbole; india; islam; militants; muslim; terror; weapon; weaponofchoice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last
People who should not be allowed to own guns:

• anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature.

Yea!   Screw "due process".   Who needs it?   </sarcasm>

Unfortunately, in these modern times, the pen is no longer the most powerful weapon; the automatic rifle has taken its place.

I'll leave it to someone else to address this chronic bed-wetters' hyperbole regarding "automatic weapons".

1 posted on 09/30/2005 10:51:39 AM PDT by holymoly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: holymoly

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" .. except in the following cases which I think make a lot of sense: blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah


2 posted on 09/30/2005 10:55:29 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

automatic weapons have been banned in the usa for decades.


3 posted on 09/30/2005 10:56:02 AM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
Do I think it is acceptable for a “normal” citizen to own a gun for the purposes of self-protection and self-defense? Yes.

Thank-you for your permission, d*ckhead.

4 posted on 09/30/2005 10:56:12 AM PDT by chapin2500 (Revenge is a dish best served cold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

How would one mow down legions of UN Blue helmets, chinese, or rioters without an automatic??? If some folks dont own full autos, ambivilent whiners wont have anyone to protect them.


5 posted on 09/30/2005 10:56:13 AM PDT by samadams2000 (Nothing fills the void of a passing hurricane better than government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
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.

There also were no carbines.

6 posted on 09/30/2005 10:56:26 AM PDT by umgud (Comment removed by poster before moderator could get to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

The author forgets that the 2nd Amendment is in place to defend the republic from foreign and domestic tyranny. You can't fight invading troops or domestically trained thugs effetively with pistols.


7 posted on 09/30/2005 10:56:51 AM PDT by Firefigher NC (Volunteer firefighters- standing tall, serving proud in the tradition of Ben Franklin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

"Is the government limiting the second amendment right to bear arms if it says to someone: “No, you cannot own a gun”?

No."

I wonder if he would feel the same with the govnment limiting the first amendment and forcing him to be sensored and his writing not allowed to be published.


8 posted on 09/30/2005 10:56:54 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

Four conditions on owning a gun? Let's start with those four conditions applying to anyone who writes, speaks or otherwise communicates through "the media." That probably wouldn't fly with all of those anti-gun writers. That "history of mental illness" would be a real tricky thing to handle.


9 posted on 09/30/2005 10:57:36 AM PDT by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

He missed one.

Democrats should never be allowed to buy or own a firearm of any kind. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions, and they fail to hold other people accountable for what actions they take.


10 posted on 09/30/2005 10:57:38 AM PDT by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

If the author knew more about guns, I suppose he'd specify an allowable caliber too, since I notice he uses the phrase "to injure an intruder" instead of to kill and intruder.

Maybe everyong should be just be allowed to own a single shot pellet gun.


11 posted on 09/30/2005 10:57:41 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492727/posts

Kashmiri Women Take Up Arms For Self-Protection
Middle East Times ^ | September 23, 2005 | Prakriiti Gupta


Posted on 09/28/2005 8:05:16 AM EDT by Fun Bob


MARAH, Jammu and Kashmir -- Women in Jammu and Kashmir have now picked up guns against Islamic militants to protect their homes.

At least 30 Muslim women in the disputed region to the north of India and Pakistan have constituted a separate all-women Village Defense Committee (VDC) and are operating with the Indian army in the forested mountains of Surankote in the Poonch district bordering the Pakistani side of Kashmir to fight militants.

"Now militants do not dare enter our village," said 18-year-old Nishat Bee, the youngest member of the group. Her companion, however, corrects her by saying, "In fact militants have not been this way since we picked up guns against them."

On a visit to the twin villages of Marah and Kulali, one finds tall, slender Muslim women sporting rifles on their shoulders while grazing cattle alone in deep forests or standing on top of the roofs of their homes to keep a watch on militants.

"I am proud to fight a Jihad [holy war] against marauders who have cheated us of our dignity and honor," says Shamima Akhter, the 30-year-old commander of this particular women's group.

"Militants who would force us to provide them shelter, food and at times to entertain them physically were harassing us physically and mentally. If we opposed them they would commit rapes or kill our family members. We wanted to confront them and the only way to do it was to acquaint ourselves with the basic functioning of guns and grenades," she added.

The majority of the men of this border belt work in Gulf countries leaving their women, children and elderly back in remote mountainous villages, the access to majority of which is through hours of rough walks that make the women soft targets.

It is common practice for the militants to seek shelter, food or seek sexual favors from these women, and in case of refusal, it is not unusual to rape or even kill them, using locals to work as porters on gunpoint in villages.

The Kashmir conflict traces its roots to 1947, when India and Pakistan simultaneously gained their independence from Britain. Pakistan was formed from the majority Muslim part of British territory, and India from the majority Hindu part.

The state of Jammu-Kashmir, with a majority Muslim population but a Hindu ruler, chose to be a part of India in a process that many believed to be illegal. Since then, India and Pakistan have fought three major wars over Kashmir, and close to 1 million have died in the violence. In 1989 the Kashmiri independence movement turned militant and began to promote the independence of Kashmir from India through violent means.

The VDCs were set up in Jammu and Kashmir in the mid-nineties following a number of massacres of the innocent inhabitants of the troubled region's far-flung villages. As there were no police or army pickets near these inaccessible villages, the Indian security forces provided military training to locals, and equipped them with weapons and wireless sets to counter militant attacks. At least 450 such VDCs are now functional in Jammu and Kashmir.

The foundation of this first women's VDC goes back to March 2003, when local Muslim priest Mir Hussain was killed by a group of mainly foreign Lashkar E-Tayyaba militants when he tried to stop the rape of his wife.

The priest's brother, Fazal Hussain, returned from the Gulf where he had been working, and with the help of the Indian army constituted the first ever-Muslim village committee in the border district of Poonch.

This group helped the Indian army destroy the biggest militant hideout in the famous Hill Kaka bowl in the mountains of Surankote in July 2003. At least 150 foreign militants were killed in the operation.

To avenge those killings, a Lashkar group in April 2004 attacked Kulali village and killed 14 women and children while the men were out on an operation.

Later, in June 2004, the militants executed another attack, which was repulsed by a woman, Khatoon Begum, who had learned to use a 303 Rifle from her son. Although she died in the attack her act helped save at least a dozen members of her family from Islamic guerrillas.

"Khatoon Begum's daring act lead to the foundation of all Muslim women VDC. We were supported by our husbands and fathers and thus trained ourselves in the operation of 303 rifles, SLRs, grenade throwing and other military aspects of how to react and repulse a militant attack", stated another women fighter, Shahnaz.

Tahira Begum, wife of VDC member Tahir Hussain Choudhary and mother of three says, "we want to live with honor and dignity and [for that] we have waged a war against these gun trotters [who are] a blot on the name of Islam.

"It is an amazing feeling to hold a gun in one's hand for a noble cause," Begum added. "On several occasions in the past eight months I have come across jihadis in the forests who are scared and who go into hiding. I am proud to be fighting a jihad against these marauders who cheated us of our dignity and honor."

Trained in the firing, basic handling and cleaning of weapons, as well as in battle craft and field craft drills, nearly every month these women go to nearby army camps to polish up on their shooting skills and to update their knowledge of weapons used commonly by terrorists.

"They have an extraordinary learning zest," said Indian army Public Relations Officer R.K Chhibber.

"We check on their fire ranges and other technical aspects almost every month. They also assist us in vital operations."


12 posted on 09/30/2005 10:58:18 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle

"automatic weapons have been banned in the usa for decades."

Actually they technically aren't, just very heavily regulated. We should loosen those regulations, too.


13 posted on 09/30/2005 10:58:47 AM PDT by Firefigher NC (Volunteer firefighters- standing tall, serving proud in the tradition of Ben Franklin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: camle
automatic weapons have been banned in the usa for decades.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here:

IIRC While not banned per se, they are heavily regulated by the BATFE (as Class III weapons).

14 posted on 09/30/2005 10:58:52 AM PDT by holymoly ("A lot" is TWO words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

"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. "

Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

'Single shot' guns were the 'weapon of the day' and were perfectly legal to own (cannons too).

Since that time, 'automatic weapons' and 'semi-automatic' weapons have become the 'weapon of the day'.


Liberals are always talking about the 'evolving' Constitution. But when it comes the Second Amendment, they just seem to want to leave that in the 'past'.


15 posted on 09/30/2005 10:59:12 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle
automatic weapons have been banned in the usa for decades.

You can buy autos in this country. You just have to have lots of money and proper licensing.

16 posted on 09/30/2005 10:59:53 AM PDT by chapin2500 (Revenge is a dish best served cold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
I've given up on these morons. They have no clue what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd. Not because they are inherently stupid, just that they are in complete denial about the prospect of a less than benign government. One more time: The RKBA is NOT about hunting or sport shooting; it IS about having the means to resist a government that oversteps its Constitutuional limitations. In that, the Founders intended to have a citizenry that had at least the same level of firepower as that of any standing [government controlled] army. That includes full auto weapons. Self defense against criminals is an added bonus.
17 posted on 09/30/2005 11:00:32 AM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud
There also were no carbines.

Or bolt actions, smokeless powder... the list goes on and on.

18 posted on 09/30/2005 11:00:52 AM PDT by holymoly ("A lot" is TWO words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

"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. "


Well sorry buddy but back in the Revolution they merely had muzzle loaders...By your logic we should only own Muzzle loaders and Flint locks. Semi Auto was not around back then either...


19 posted on 09/30/2005 11:02:11 AM PDT by Xenophon450 (Seems like forever, my eyes have been denied...Home, I'm finally home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
• anybody whose medical records show a history of mental illness.

Any combat vet who has had his buddie's brains blown all over him...or one that saved his entire platoon who ended up being ordered to or needed to see any mental health professional during his/her enlistment or post enlistment ever diagnosed with PTSD?...including POWs and the severely wounded?

How about rape victims...taking into see mental health professionals....after having been in touch with the system they now have 'a record'...they should not be allowed to own weapons for self defense...even after having been raped and their rapist is still on the loose...or never convicted..or worse is now out of prison and looking for a little payback and whatever else he can take?

Once a lib always a lib

Just never quite get it...

Always looking for Govt. control to solve all the problems they seem to have with free people..who they see as out of step with their 'personal opinion' versions of reality which they also believe should be the only reality

imo

20 posted on 09/30/2005 11:02:15 AM PDT by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
No need to guess what this bimbo is going to be when she grows up.


I reckon that's why God made Prozac.



21 posted on 09/30/2005 11:03:04 AM PDT by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
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.

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.

22 posted on 09/30/2005 11:03:05 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
I know a little girl who is as sweet as they come. Also pretty as a speckled pup. Also about as law abiding and kind as one could imagine.

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.

23 posted on 09/30/2005 11:03:14 AM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
If you have to ask permission... then it isn't a Right.

Liberals don't get this. Then again, neither do some supposed "conservatives".

24 posted on 09/30/2005 11:04:06 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be. -El Neil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
This is so tiresome:

Automatic weapons require extensive and expensive federal permits just to own them. They are essentially unavailable to the average citizen.

At the time the constitution was written, citizens were allowed to have weapons every bit as powerful as those available to the military of the era. That is no longer the case.

One NEVER should shoot at an intruder or burglar just to "wound" them. If shooting is necessary, which should be only the very last resort, then the shot must be with the intent to end the confrontation. Otherwise, one is just providing the perpetrator the opportunity to return fire and injure/kill oneself or one's family. Police officers are taught to shoot to kill, if a shot is required, for just that very reason.
25 posted on 09/30/2005 11:04:22 AM PDT by LOC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

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.


26 posted on 09/30/2005 11:04:29 AM PDT by dhs12345 (w)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

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.


27 posted on 09/30/2005 11:04:52 AM PDT by tumblindice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Firefigher NC

or spitballs...


28 posted on 09/30/2005 11:05:11 AM PDT by misterrob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: holymoly; 2nd amendment mama; basil; dbwz; songbird51
• anybody whose *medical records* show a history of mental illness.

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?

29 posted on 09/30/2005 11:05:38 AM PDT by Ladysmith ((NRA and SAS) WI Hunter Shootings: Vang: GUILTY Nine Times - First Degree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
I'll leave it to someone else to address this chronic bed-wetters' hyperbole regarding "automatic weapons".

Aw, man. I was gonna leave it to someone else!
30 posted on 09/30/2005 11:05:39 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
Automatic weapons are just ridiculous and should be completely outlawed.

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?

31 posted on 09/30/2005 11:06:33 AM PDT by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

"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.


32 posted on 09/30/2005 11:07:41 AM PDT by Firefigher NC (Volunteer firefighters- standing tall, serving proud in the tradition of Ben Franklin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LOC1
One NEVER should shoot at an intruder or burglar just to "wound" them.

I couldn't stop shaking my head after I read the author's viewpoint on wounding intruders. Just stupid.
33 posted on 09/30/2005 11:08:14 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
"People who should not be allowed to own guns:

• 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.

34 posted on 09/30/2005 11:09:06 AM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

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.


35 posted on 09/30/2005 11:10:04 AM PDT by jjones9853
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
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.

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.

36 posted on 09/30/2005 11:11:17 AM PDT by Horatio Gates (I do not like Code Pink and Sheehan. I do not like them Sam I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle
"automatic weapons have been banned in the usa for decades.

Wrong. Machine guns manufactured before 1986 that are registered under federal law are legal to own in most states.

37 posted on 09/30/2005 11:11:23 AM PDT by bruoz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
I'm thinking this is a well-intentioned liberal in sore need of a firearms education. While I have never tried picking my nose at a 600 rpm cyclical rate I suspect it might be a somewhat difficult and painful experience.

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.

38 posted on 09/30/2005 11:11:33 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
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.

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.?

39 posted on 09/30/2005 11:11:34 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle
"automatic weapons have been banned in the usa for decades."

That's strange. I attended the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Machine gun Shoot a few months back and I could have sworn I saw hundreds of full autos blasting away.
40 posted on 09/30/2005 11:11:56 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
If the government owns a .22, I should be able to own a .22.

If the government can own a BAR, I should be able to own a BAR.

If the government can own a quad 50, then I should be able to own a quad 50.

This is what the 2nd admendment was written for, for citizens to be able to protect themselves from what the government can become, and is becoming!

41 posted on 09/30/2005 11:11:57 AM PDT by Tolkien (Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle

WRONG!!!!!!

They are fully legal in most states, providing the buyer is willing to jump through several unconstitutional legal hurdles.

My reaction to this $hit piece?
I will obtain at least one more NFA item today!

I could easily write the rejoinder to this seditionist drivel, but ther is no point, he clearly has an irration and closed mind.

For a genuinly educational experiance regards NFA items peruse http://www.nfaoa.org


42 posted on 09/30/2005 11:13:07 AM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

Do not mess with the constitution - it is a grand document just as it is!


43 posted on 09/30/2005 11:13:23 AM PDT by sandydipper (Less government is best government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

Exactly right!!


44 posted on 09/30/2005 11:13:32 AM PDT by Ladysmith ((NRA and SAS) WI Hunter Shootings: Vang: GUILTY Nine Times - First Degree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: camle

THe NFA of 1934 requires registration, a permit, and a transfer tax. It does not preclude the average citizen from legally owning fully automatic weapons. They are realtively expensive, though.


45 posted on 09/30/2005 11:13:43 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LOC1
"Automatic weapons require extensive and expensive federal permits just to own them.

$200.00 transfer tax.

46 posted on 09/30/2005 11:14:47 AM PDT by bruoz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

What would George Washington have given for a platoon with M-16's and a double basic ammo load? Sheesh!


47 posted on 09/30/2005 11:16:25 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
THe NFA of 1934 requires registration, a permit, and a transfer tax.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that tax was $200 then, and the tax is the same today.

48 posted on 09/30/2005 11:18:05 AM PDT by chapin2500 (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: camle

Oh, no, they aren't! I shot my first one this spring - FULL AUTO!


49 posted on 09/30/2005 11:18:52 AM PDT by Ladysmith ((NRA and SAS) WI Hunter Shootings: Vang: GUILTY Nine Times - First Degree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

" anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature."


I can see where this is going...

To fight Federal Tyranny you would be declared a terrorist and anyone sympathetic to the cause would be a "Terrorist", anyone SUSPECTED would be confiscated and eventually it would elevate to anyone.


Terrorists kill WAYYY more people with bombs and planes into buildings and IED's than with guns so far...They know this. Then there are WMD's...Al Qaeda knows these are the ultimate terror tool not Automatic weapons. The government as become so big and power addicted that they're sole fear is losing that power.


50 posted on 09/30/2005 11:19:27 AM PDT by Xenophon450 (Seems like forever, my eyes have been denied...Home, I'm finally home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson