Is it Time to Ban All Automatic Weapons?

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.  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.”  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.  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?

369 thoughts on “Is it Time to Ban All Automatic Weapons?”

  1. FF Leo,

    I said the following: “I often think it has less to do with safety and more to do with helping to make some men feel more ‘manly.'”

    Please note my use of the word “some” in that statement.

    I don’t think all men who own guns belong in that category.

  2. If one cannot defend themselves while in public, they should not burden society with trying to defend their threats. Too costly and there’s no reason why society should protect anyone. For those against being prepared, I suspect those complaining are not BlackBelts themselves. It’s just an applicable suggestion to help people protect themselves from the fate some had at getting gunned down. If there were BlackBelts in the crowd that day, I suspect the injuries and life losses would be much less than they are today. It is not societies problem or burden to protect it’s citizens from every negative possible negative scenario. Get instruction, take some classes, and quit burdening society because of your ignorance or laziness if you are not skilled enough to defend yourself. And, stay in your residence until you choose to become proficient enough to not be our burden.

  3. Well Ms. EM,

    I suppose you think Mr. Selleck needs guns to feel more “manly”?

    QUOTE: “Actor, NRA Board member and avid gun collector Tom Selleck has donated seven rifles and revolvers used in his films to the NRA National Firearms Museum.”

    “Commenting on the most recent donation, Mr. Selleck told, “It got to the point where I had these guns in storage, and I just wanted people to see them, to share them. And I hope people think of the National Firearms Museum if they have something special they want to share, as well as The NRA Foundation for other kinds of gifts. It’s very satisfying.”

    “We deeply appreciate Tom Selleck’s continued support of NRA and the freedoms we defend,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “Thousands upon thousands of Americans visit the museum each year, and with the opportunity to display more of Tom’s personal firearms, we expect even greater public interest.” END Quote

  4. michellefrommadison,

    Re martial arts (or something similar) training. I have 2 daughters and 5 granddaughters. All, except the 2 year old, have taken several different courses in self-defense, situational awareness, etc. There are several fine programs provided by many groups. The programs my daughters and granddaughters most enjoyed were those provided by the Cleveland Police Department.

    One of their friends became so “enchanted” with a course she first took with my granddaughter that she is know some kind of “Master” (I’m sorry but can’t remember the Discipline off the top of my head)and competes on a national level.

    And yes indeed … there is a certain discipline of the mind taught in these courses that carries over in a most positive manner to academic achievement.

  5. James M.,

    Don’t waste your time and energy on “michellefrommadison”.
    I suggest you Google her.

  6. I believe that in reality, it is more women that actual own guns than men, just from my own perspective. While the gun may be registered in a man’s name, I believe the real reason for the weapon is for the issue of the women in-general. As far as the violence issue, I believe that one of the better ways to reduce violence both with guns and with physical attacks is to require something like mandating all school students to attain the level equal to or greater than TaeKwonDo Black Belt before graduating high-school, or some other measurable level before children have unsupervised interaction within the general public domain before attaining the age of majority. That, alone, would reduce, significantly, the issue of violence and the bad usage of guns. When is the last time you heard of a blackbelt being gunned down? I never have, plus most trained students have proven to be academically better off in school. A win-win situation for the students and the scholastic abilities within our schools. Society would be better off imo. Plus, it’s a less expensive way to go. Plus, no readily-accessible bullets, no potential massacres or at least significantly reduced.

  7. James M.

    I’m reposting a portion of a comment that I left on the Palin thread: “Shouldn’t we be questioning why ours is such a violent society? I’m sure there are deranged/mentally disturbed people in other countries. Why do we have so many more of the types of mass shootings that happened in Tuscon and Virginia Tech in this country than they have in other countries?”

    Can you prove to me that guns aren’t one of the contributing factors to our violent society?

    I’m not suggesting that all guns should be banned. I just don’t understand the fixation so many Americans have for guns. I often think it has less to do with safety and more to do with helping to make some men feel more “manly.”

    Chris Matthews posed a question on his program more than once this week. I’ll paraphrase: Why do people feel the need to bring guns to political events/rallies?

    Why indeed? Why are so many people in this country so fearful that they feel the need to always carry a gun?

  8. Oh well, can’t seem to post pictures — weird since you can embed youtube videos.

  9. Innocent people should not be harmed or killed just because of the issue of readily-available bullets are so darn easily accessible.

  10. HT, didn’t read that one either. I get it, you don’t. No need to keep making your silly arguments and attacks against things you have proven you just don’t understand.

  11. michellefrommadison:

    “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.”

    here is the definition of Arms from Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

    ‘ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]

    1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

    2. War; hostility.

    Arms and the man I sing.

    To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life.

    To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.

    To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.

    Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.

    3. The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, &c., as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.

    4. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.

    5. In botany, one of the seven species of fulcra or props of plants, enumerated by Linne and others. The different species of arms or armor, are prickles, thorns, forks and stings, which seem intended to protect the plants from injury by animals.

    Sire arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c.

    A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.

    In falconry, arms are the legs of a hawk from the thigh to the foot.

    Your assertion that arms do not include cartridges is absurd. Any judge who would come down against “bullets” would either be ignorant or have a political agenda.

    Seems to me arms includes “bullets”.

  12. michellefrommadison,

    I didn’t bother to even read your latest comment before posting this

    I don’t believe that for a second. Where’s the fun in trolling if you don’t read what the other guy posts in response?

  13. I have still not been successful at discharging any potential deadly-projectile from any firearm without the use of a bullet. Without bullets, I suspect that most firearms with no bullets would become less lethal. Perhaps a revamping of the bullet-availability issue needs some closer scrutiny. Simple at that.

  14. Elaine M.,

    I think that old hoary NRA adage that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns applies. We aren’t starting from a blank slate — the guns are out there and criminals can get their hands on them. I do think that making certain types of guns much harder to get makes a lot of sense.

  15. FF Leo,

    “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.”

    But isn’t there a conundrum here? If fewer people owned guns, wouldn’t this be a safer society?

Comments are closed.