Well, I guess that means the whole thing ought to be tossed out, or perhaps a new interpretation can be handed down from those sages, that special breed that is fit to do such things... No, I think I'll interpret it for myself, and I trust the others will too. And if I want to own an AK47, that really is my prerogative, isn't it? There are laws that protect persons from harm, whether by guns or butterknives. Maybe we should outlaw butterknives, too, cause people still use 'em to harm others. You're a Hummerphobe, too, aren't you? /rhetorical question.
Toss out the constitution? Of course not. Interpret it in the light of common sense and modern day technology, yes. Am I a hummerphobe? Depends on who is offering to give me a hummer.
Referring to Bush as a dictator would be offensive if it weren't so absurd. Having a reasonable discussion about these matters becomes difficult when a popular if flawed US president at the ahead of a democratically if imperfectly constituted government is equated with an almost inexpressibly brutal megalomaniac who rules by terror. Before someone pipes up with some set of invidious comparisons, I'll also add that, in my opinion, equating, say, the Ashcroft DOJ and the prisoners at Guantanamo with Hussein's "republic of fear" or, as is also common on the internet, with the Third Reich, is inane, not to mention offensive to the millions of direct victims of truly dictatorial regimes. Such imbecilic overreaching also makes rational criticism of Bush and Bush policy more difficult. As for that ridiculous poll, not only is it "unscientific," but it's closer to an editorial or a "push poll" than to an objective sampling of opinion: The lead-in implies, not very subtly, that a wave of sentiment is already turning against Bush and his "robust stance": From the first sentence down, the tone is of skepticism toward presumed conventional wisdom - i.e., that Iraq and NK are the dangers. Bush and Blair are discussed in a manner that implicitly casts doubt on them and their claims. A link near the top of the page, next to the picture of Saddam looking as reserved and statesmanlike as he probably can look, asks "Does Europe 'hate' the US?" The last sentence describes "European antagonism... now being mirrored in the US, with even those [Bush] might normally consider his allies now urging caution." There are other problems with the poll and its presumptions - including the question of whether "world peace in 2003" might not be worth sacrificing in favor of greater, longer term goals - but the more fundamental question is whether we should base our ideas and whether the US should base its actions on "popular opinion." As any trader should know, popular opinion is highly undependable: Going by popular opinion ca. 1991, George Bush #1 should have been made dictator and president for life. According to popular opinion in early 2000, the Nasdaq was clearly on the way to 10,000. It may very well be that the best solutions to the world's major problems will be unpeaceful, sadly imperfect, and totally unpopular. Because no one can predict precisely how events will unfold, nor how they will be understood, the effects on the market in the short- and long-term also remain unpredictable - except that, in all likelihood, whatever those effects are, they will be overdone in whatever short term, again reflecting the usual undependability and irrationality of immediate popular reactions to world events.
An AK47 can kill a lot of people very quickly. Is it the right of any citizen to bear any arm of his choosing, even military assault rifles, while a member of civil society? Does the phrase the "right to bear arms" deny others the right to place limits on the arms we can choose to own? At what level of killing power does it not become your prerogative? A canon? A 50 caliber machine gun? How about a howitzer in your backyard to ward off potential home invaders? That's not a rhetorical question either, please give an answer.
But support NRA and Love Charlton Heston. I'm going to introduce my 5 and 8 year old girls to target shooting soon. Start with a BB gun and move to a 22 rifle later. Every child should know how to hunter and gather. They also will know how to fly an airplane prior to their 16 birthday.
It is. But should it be? Here on ET we have already beaten this subject to death. I remember being told that an M-16 was a good weapon for hunting squirrels. The 200 years of advancement in weapons technology should mean something. This all seems so repetitive. But once again, I am quite sure that even in New York City, where it is probably the most difficult place in the US to obtain a hand gun permit, anyone can own a black powder muzzle loading handgun. Without a permit. That is a very different weapon from say a Mac10, or any other high capacity pistol. Or even an old 5 shot revolver. They were not around when the 2nd amendment was written. Our constitution was written to accommodate change. We no longer have slavery. Women can vote. Times change. So if you believe in the right to bear arms based on the 2nd amendment, that is kind of anachronistic. If you believe in the right for other reasons, that is a different story. But the constitutional argument seems kind of lame to me. Hunting rifles are legal in all 50 states and require no background checks (as far as I know). But really Chas.....who needs an AK47? (or any "assault type rifle")? And what possible use does a machine pistol like a Mac10 serve other than being useful in an armed bank robbery attempt? I don't have a problem with guns. I don't own one anymore, but I have. I just don't see why limits to what one's rights are shouldn't be imposed somewhere. Someone said (and this is not the first time this issue has been raised) where do we draw the line? If we use the 2nd amendment, then why can't I keep a bazooka? Or a howitzer? (etc.). What is the definition of "arms"? And what was it 200 years ago? I understand that by definition, being a "conservative" means to conserve the way things have been. Does this in any way seem to imply a restraint on progress? Peace, Rs7
it's a long way from an AK 47 to a Howitzer, now, isn't it? You figure it out. You can kill a lot of people with a rental truck, some oil and fertilizer.... so, by extension ____________________. Come to think of you can kill a lot of people with any of those things by themselves. I don't own an AK 47, and I don't think I want one, either. But unless I have reason to suspect your motives, I won't prevent you from owning one (assuming it's legally permissable). But this is a detail that distracts from my main point (which I grant I made poorly). I'll take another 'shot' at it here: The responsibility for the self defense of a fit person is best left to the principal, not to a subcontractor. And armed citizenry is its own best defense. Armed citizens are more than able to defend the defenseless should the need arise. To wit: I submit that, had the citizenry been armed on 9/11, the World Trade Centers would still be standing. Had the citizenry been armed as a matter of course, as the founders foresaw, hijackings probably would be attempted very rarely if at all. The issue is, who's fit to meet the needs of a society: a government, or its citizens. In too many ways for too long a time, citizens have been told that the governmnent knows best. I disagree. I have more faith in the abilities of free people than I do in government micromanagers. The founders knew well what the limitations of wise government are, and gave us a constitution that limits government. The limitations of wise government are based not on changes in technology or public mood, but on unchanging human nature. The Second Ammendment is as applicable today as it was when it was written. It's been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The siren song of centralized authority is 'we know what's best for you. Trust us.' An armed citizenry is not a regression to lawlessness; it is a deterrent to lawlessness. The idea is that the lawful in heart are more numerous than the lawless; and/or at least as well armed.
You do need a license to rent a truck. And you do need to qualify to get the license. Besides, a truck bomb is strictly a terrorist's weapon. There is little danger of a domestic argument ending up in a "McVeigh" style bombing. But having an AK 47 laying around the house can result in a lot more possible scenarios. Including accidents, children getting their hand on them, whatever. Chas, we can go at this forever. And not only that, I would be glad to argue either side of the "debate" because it is one of those issues that can be reasonably presented from either side. Which makes for an interesting subject. But haven't we all been through this sufficiently? I think if you can prove a need to keep a howitzer in your yard, then by all means, you should be able to obtain a license for it, and have it. I just for the life of me can't think of a reason though. Just like I can't think of a reason why anyone would need a "real" assault rifle. Or high capacity machine pistol. But maybe there are reasons. If so, then they should have the right to obtain a license to have them. But I believe some real proof for their need should be presented. Hard to imagine what it would be. Peace, rs7