Submitted by Guest Blogger, Lawrence Rafferty
In light of the tragic shooting today in Arizona, I have to wonder aloud if automatic weapons should be banned by this country. I realize that the 2nd Amendment right to own a gun is strongly defended by the NRA and other right-wing groups, but I am sick and tired of reading about all of the shootings the past couple of years. Whether it was the shootings earlier this year at various United States Marine sites around the country or the California shootout in July with the guy who was trying to attack the ACLU and the TIDES non-profit organization; the vitriol seems to be on the rise. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ And with politicians fanning the flames, this vitriol is not bound to be diminished anytime soon.
The Second Amendment is a very concise Amendment. “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.” http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2 We have seen various attempts over the years by the Feds and many States and municipalities to restrict gun ownership. The recent Supreme Court case of McDonald , et al vs. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al affirmed the fundamental right of Americans to own a gun by a 5-4 decision. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf The McDonald decision did not give us any guidance on what kind of restrictions to that fundamental right the Supreme Court would allow. However, how can automatic weapons or high-powered rifles be exempt from an outright banning of their ownership or at least significant restrictions on their use? Can a good faith argument really be made that an automatic weapon is necessary for personal protection?
The Supreme Court Justices do not live in a bubble and they must see what damage these weapons have already brought to families across the nation. Don’t they?
Thank you Blouise, but unfortunately it’s way over James M’s head imo.
Blouise,
She’s repeated that argument while simply asserting that bullets are not protected by the second amendment. The one argument can’t substitute for the other.
James M., I didn’t bother to even read your latest comment before posting this because you convinced me already that you just ‘don’t get it and that you don’t understand or accept proven fact. That said, and to further explain something very simplistic for you, it’s just my viewpoint to stand up for the rights and the protections of people, instead of believing it is best to limit or eliminate the possession of guns which would only allow such massacres from occurring. Makes no sense, imo.
James M.
Very good, reasoned reply.
“As I stated above, a constitutional amendment or sea change on the Supreme Court would be required to make your plan constitutional. Your misplaced argument that this tragedy would not have occurred if your idea was implemented has no bearing on the constitutionality of that idea.” (James M)
===================================================
That seems to be a misrepresentation of the argument she presented.
michellefrommadison,
D.C. v. Heller recognized a personal Second Amendment right to not only possess a firearm, but to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the Second Amendment against the states.
Using a firearm requires bullets, QED, the government cannot ban bullets consistent with current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment.
As I stated above, a constitutional amendment or sea change on the Supreme Court would be required to make your plan constitutional. Your misplaced argument that this tragedy would not have occurred if your idea was implemented has no bearing on the constitutionality of that idea.
Mike Spindell,
I live in a very rural area. I have owned/used firearms of various types since I was about 6 years old and I began hunting with my family at about the same age. I have experience with *fully automatic* firearms through military service and law enforcement. I was an ‘Expert Marksman’ with all hand/long gun weapons during my LE career.
I own firearms for protection, although I would prefer that I could live in a world where such firearms were not required; however, that world will never exist.
Hunters don’t fear, imo, that deer and rabbits are going to take over the world, at least not here in the U.S.A.
Former Federal LEO
1, January 12, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Blouise,
Since you posited the term “gun lobby”, please list the names of those people posting within this thread who you consider are “members” of your stated “gun lobby.” Thanks.
==================================================
Anyone who uses a “fear” tactic similar to “they are coming to take your guns so they can then take your (fill in the blank).” That, for me, is the (excuse the expression)dead give-a-way.
Fear mongering is the tool that reveals the association with the “gun lobby”. But try to research gun lobby or gun laws on the internet … Ms. Maddow was right … very, very little information considering the size of the gun industry.
If you will forgive the simplicity of the following: I have yet to meet a hunter who fears that deer and rabbits are going to take over the world.
There were some slight foul-ups in the entire process PatricParamedic, but I believe the necessary steps are adequate enough right now, if properly followed, to avoid most instances such as this massacre from ever occurring.
James M, you are not alone in your current thinking because there are many uninformed and ill-informed people just like you. Still though, it doesn’t change the fact that had that shooter not possess a gun on that tragic day, those victims would not have been harmed or killed.
How many of the same outraged thinkers here, who believe the “system” OUGHT to have weeded out such a predator, wouldn’t also scream bloody murder, if the “system” were indeed invasive enough to shut him down before he acted?
Be sure to think “Minority Report” (a Tom Cruise movie) before you answer:
Film blurb: “In the future, criminals are caught before the crimes they commit even happen.”
(J.Hoberman, the Village Voice writes)
“The unexpectedly topical premise, taken from a 1956 story by sci-fi master Philip K. Dick, posits a future in which mutant “pre-cogs” dream of murders before they occur, thus allowing the police to arrest killers in advance of their crimes. “The guilty are arrested before the law is broken,” per the movie’s sell line. Spielberg himself has expressed support for the extra-legality of the current Bush war on terror.”
We are not really very far away at all. The city of Portsmouth, England is already 3 years into a CCTV network that tracks how slowly some people walk around town. (Researchers have convinced them that slow walkers are invariably up to no good)
I posit that if we don’t go up in smoke prior to the “Minoirty Report” eventuality, are we not pretty far along in the process already?
michellefrommadison,
Repeating it just doesn’t make it so. You’re starting to come across more and more like a troll.
FFLEO,
Seeing your comments here made me think about something. I live in a gated, secure community and so personally feel I have no need of a handgun and I’m not into hunting so I don’t need a rifle or a shotgun. Having worked for many years in the dangerous areas of NYC, unarmed and alone, I feel I haveenough street smarts to avoid problems when i’m out and about.
However, it’s my impression, correct me if I’m wrong, that you live in a rather rural area. If so and it was me living rurally I would not only have a Sig Sauer handgun, but also a powerful shotgun and perhaps an AK47. In the 2nd Amendment debate sometimes it comes down to whose oxe is being gored.
Yes, I can cite many Hobart, but it may be easier for you to understand this issue better if you just read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution instead of reading through all the specific Laws governing these issues you don’t understand. No bullets are guaranteed to any American in any Law, at least in the U.S.A.
Blouise,
Since you posited the term “gun lobby”, please list the names of those people posting within this thread who you consider are “members” of your stated “gun lobby.” Thanks.
rafflaw
1, January 12, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Blouise,
The gun lobby is one of the largest “players’ in Washington and they are not going away. They know that tragedies like this will cause more fear and cause more guns sales.
========================================================
Yep … one of the corporate monsters that rule this nation and lead the frightened populace around by the nose.
It’s all manufactured. First the guns and then the fear that sells the guns.
The “gun lobby” knows it’s business and for them it’s as easy as shooting fish in a barrel … or children on the streets.
Blouise,
The gun lobby is one of the largest “players’ in Washington and they are not going away. They know that tragedies like this will cause more fear and cause more guns sales.
The “gun lobby” is hard at work on this thread and it is interesting to read.
thank you.
or is that sure as in gfy?