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".
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.
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?
• 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.
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.?
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!
Do not mess with the constitution - it is a grand document just as it is!
" 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.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to provide for "a well regulated militia", which is roughly defined historically as all able bodied adult men between the ages of 18 to 50.
Given that fact, a better arguement could be made for an individual right to militia weapons such as so-called assault rifles, (including automatic versions), then can be made for an individual right to own hunting rifles.
The essence of the 2nd amendment is that it preserves our right resist tyranny.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
How about non-violent felons like tax cheats and perjurers?
• anybody who has ever been in prison (not jail) for an extended period of time, especially for gun crimes.
Again, what about non-violent crimes and if the person is exonerated or the conviction is overtured on appeal after spending a couple of years in the pokey.
• anybody whose medical records show a history of mental illness.
So in addition to the 10 day wait, we must now produce medical records to buy a firearm? And who is going to interpret the medical records and decide whether the person has a mental illness? What about minor depression, anxiety, or obsessive/compulsive disorders?•
anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature.
Anybody on any wanted list is pretty broad. Based upon the amount of junk mail and spam email that I receive, I must be on a lot of wanted lists because everyone seems to want me to buy something from them.
My 'feedback' post at her newspaper:
Meghan,
How sweet of you to decide how to limit my 2nd Amendment
rights.
I would like to limit your 1st Amendment rights after
reading your hyperbolic column.
First, automatic weapons in civilian hands have been
severely limited since 1934. To purchase one today
requires an unbelievable number of hoops, fees and taxes,
out of the reach of most Americans.
Second, there is a thing in the Constitution called 'Due
Process'. Basically, you can not limit the rights of an
individual because some bureaucrat arbitrarily puts their
name on a list. Even if it is a 'terrorist' list. Did you
know that Senator Ted Kennedy turned up on the 'no-fly'
list? And that it took him, a well known Senator over 30
days to get his name off the list?
You have some good ideas and could actually end up being
a good supporter of gun rights, once you get your facts
straight.
In the future, you may want to take the time to call the
NRA or some other knowledgeable source on 2nd Amendment
issues.
Say What!
More likely to kill the intruder? You becha, Jack! That is what a good 12ga. pump is for. Only problem is cleaning up the mess.
For some reason, I think she just might object. /s
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
>>>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. <<<
And who determines who is allowed and who is to be disenfranchised? Alexander Hamilton warned us about this form of backdoor usurpation with this statement:
"Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions by letting into the government principles and precedents which afterward prove fatal to themselves. Of this kind is the doctrine of disqualification, disfranchisement, and banishment, by acts of legislature."
What happens to those citizens who are permanently banished from the ranks of freemen? Does not this type of disenfranchisement create anger in those citizens, similar to the anger of our Founding Fathers when they were disenfranchised by the Crown? Is not the "treatment" worse than the "disease"?