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?
Elaine: “What facts can you add to the discussion to help ground the debate and to make it a more meaningful one?”
Elaine,
Aside from attempting to make a case for appeals to emotion in this “debate,” I have no idea what your argument here is.
That aside, let me ask you a few questions:
Do you think debates should be framed in a clear and concise manner; i.e so that the debaters are at least familiar with the terminology and actual topic over which they are debating? (e.g. was a congressman shot with an automatic weapon?)
Do you know what an automatic weapon is?
Did you know what an automatic weapon was before reading this thread? If so, did you have a problem with the title of this thread and the alleged nexus to the incident in question (which did not involve an automatic weapon)?
Do you believe you can just walk into a gun store and purchase a machine gun (i.e. an automatic weapon)?
Is it your belief that there are no FEDERAL laws regarding the purchase and ownership of machine guns? (Hint; 1934 & 1986)
Would you believe me if I told you that if you wanted a machine gun, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms just might have the final say?
Would you consider conducting a debate regarding gun control immediately in the wake of a shooting incident an act of deliberation based in principle or hasty commentary made in the heat of the moment?
So to answer your question: “What facts can you add to the discussion to help ground the debate and to make it a more meaningful one?”
How about argument from emotion sans any attempt at clarification or grasp of the current status of what is being debated inevitably results in meaningless chatter that resembles an engine without a drive train; spinning endlessly and going nowhere.
The Swiss….and are not multicultural
why yes, yes they are, certainly not to the extent of the U.S. but most definitely multicultural.
(hint: 4 official languages)
Switzerland also has a population less than that of New York City, I’m not so sure that’s an apt analogy.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47290.html Jan Brewer wants to protect second amendment rights to such a degree that you don’t even need a permit to carry a concealed handgun in Arizona. She signed the bill this year.
blouise; I hope your husband’s medical issue has a favorable outcome. Keep us “apprised” as AY said.
Blouise,
I hope your medical issues turn out ok.
Elaine,
Critics are those who stand behind the lines and shoot the wounded as they return from battle.
(Fitting, don’t you think?)
The Swiss were also bankers for the Nazis, Tootles.
And the Nazis weren’t multicultural either.
You “Culture Warriors” have a lot in common with other cultures. Unfortunately it’s all cultures that grow in a Petri dish or in solid waste fermentation ponds.
If one is tired of the violence caused by guns, then severely restricting the guns of law-abiding citizens would be the last thing to do.
The biggest mass murderers last century were governments with unarmed citizens (not lone wackos). The only way to ban guns and for a country to remain safe is for even the government to not have them.
That isn’t going to happen.
The Swiss are all armed. They don’t have these problems. They have western civilization values, similar cultural beliefs, and are not multicultural.
All of this matters.
CM,
I’m going to stick with Jefferson on this one.
I would personally prefer to live in a society where guns were less available, where I didn’t have to worry that the angry driver behind me who thinks I’m going too slow might have a gun in his pocket. I don’t intend ever to shoot anyone or anything. On the other hand, I live in a rural area where many normal, responsible people enjoy hunting.
Rather than arguing fruitlessly about whether certain types of guns should be legal or not, perhaps we should focus instead on the the way using guns is increasingly suggested in political rhetoric. Sarah Palin uses gun sight crosshairs to “target” the districts of politicians she doesn’t like. The congresswoman’s opponent apparently had on his website, “Get on target for victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.” Can anyone seriously argue that the use of gun images and the juxtaposition of Ms. Gifford’s name with an M16 don’t carry the implication that maybe guns should be used? Not to mention all the references by various tea party candidates to “second amendment remedies.” I was under the impression that inciting violence was a crime, not legitimate free speech. Perhaps that is where we should be focusing our attention.
Sam Colt:
I think you are wrong about that and I also think it wrong to post something calling for a ban on “automatic” weapons after a shooting of this kind. It is politically motivated as is your attempt to distort and redirect.
However an automatic weapon was not used, it was a semi-automatic pistol.
here are a couple of cases from the 30’s after the passage of the national firearms act:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi%2Dbin/getcase.pl%3Fcourt=US%26amp%3Bvol=300%26amp%3Binvol=506%23513
One lives to be of service, Chris.
Buddha,
This thread was due for a good laugh.
Sam Colt,
Your village has called. Guess who is missing again?
Bob,
Sexy sells.
Bob,Esq.
What facts can you add to the discussion to help ground the debate and to make it a more meaningful one?
Martianna,
And that was a drive-by … cute, but of little value
FFLEO & Buddha,
This is not one of the best threads I’ve read here. In fact, it’s one of the least informed; evidenced in part by your efforts to clarify the debate.
As a life long shooter & “gun owner” I’ve always been aware of the ‘laws’ against (what I always referred to as) machine guns (i.e. fully automatic weapons).
Thus the question “Is it time to ban all automatic weapons” completely ignores the laws already in place since 1934 and 1986.
While a debate about gun laws is indeed a sexy topic, it pales in comparison to my disgust for the proclivity of knee jerk commentary by people with such ‘strong convictions’ that they appear to remain ignorant by design as to the actual facts upon which any meaningful debate must be grounded.
Even more annoying, this is a trend in many other debates; not an anomaly.
SAM COLT’s long-winded screed flows from the same twisted teabagger logic that shouts “Obama’s a Marxist!”
Trying to lump Hitler & Marx together has a long history but it’s never withstood scrutiny as fascism & social democracy are antithetical and only somebody steeped either in historical ignorance or intellectual dishonesty would attempt to claim otherwise.
Blouise,
The best of good luck.