1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

(MS) A liberal makes it halfway down the road.....

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Drizzt, Oct 8, 2005.

  1. Drizzt

    Drizzt Senior Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Moscow on the Colorado, TX
    Owning firearms should be a protected right

    By Meghan Blalock

    September 30, 2005

    Make no bones about it: I am a liberal who believes that guns in themselves are not evil.

    Are you shocked? You shouldn’t be. Some conservatives like to present the cliché counterargument that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” in debates about gun control. However, the question still remains: Exactly what argument do they think they are countering?

    It is not the “liberal stance” that guns in themselves have the ability to kill people and are evil. In fact, anyone who believes this nonsense, liberal or conservative, is just plain dumb.

    In fact, I – and most intelligent people of any political leaning – am of the opinion that an inanimate object cannot really have ethical qualities, one way or another. Thus, guns cannot be evil, but they cannot be good either.

    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.

    Is the government limiting the second amendment right to bear arms if it says to someone: “No, you cannot own a gun”?


    People who should not be allowed to own guns:

    • anybody who has committed a felony, ever. Exceptions could be made for people who have clearly “recovered” and wanted a weapon to protect their households.

    • anybody who has ever been in prison (not jail) for an extended period of time, especially for gun crimes.

    • anybody whose medical records show a history of mental illness.

    • anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature.

    Do I think it is acceptable for a “normal” citizen to own a gun for the purposes of self-protection and self-defense? Yes. In all likelihood, even if the government illegalized ALL guns, criminals would probably still be able to get their hands on them (although it might be a bit more difficult). Thus, if a criminal can get a gun, legally or illegally, I should be able to own one in case he or she breaks into my house with the intent to harm me or my family.

    This right, however, should not extend into the realm of automatic weapons. The gun must have a child safety feature, and it should be made illegal for that person to re-sell his or her gun to whomever he or she chooses because you never know what kind of psychotic individual might then be the owner of the gun.

    Also, when the founding fathers wrote that all American citizens should have the right to bear arms, there was no such thing as an automatic weapon. Guns that shot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger were not around. Now, there are guns that spray bullets easier than you can pick your nose.

    Should these automatic weapons be legal?

    NO. No, no, no.

    If anybody can make a good argument as to why such weapons should be legal, or what positive purpose they serve in our society (or what purpose at all), please e-mail me or write an editorial about it.

    A weapon that shoots bullets at a ridiculously rapid rate serves no real purpose in our society, other than killing people. If somebody wants to own a handgun for the purpose of injuring an intruder in his or her home who may be threatening his or her life, I am not opposed to that. Should a person be able to own an automatic weapon for the same purposes? Absolutely not. It is unnecessary, and you are more likely to kill the intruder rather than just injure him or her, which is also unnecessary.

    So, in conclusion, guns are not evil. The acts they commit – via a person pulling the trigger – can be evil, but they are not always. I think it is always wrong to kill another person, regardless of what they have done. But it is not wrong to injure one who is trying to injure you or your family. Automatic weapons are just ridiculous and should be completely outlawed.

    Unfortunately, in these modern times, the pen is no longer the most powerful weapon; the automatic rifle has taken its place.


    I'd say there's still hope for her. She just needs someone to help her get past her fear of the 'scary' guns.
  2. Buck Snort

    Buck Snort Participating Member

    Oct 5, 2004
    N. CA.
    If I'm a law abiding citizen then I should be allowed to own an automatic weapon if I want one. Pure and simple. It ain't the gun, its the person using it. If a Thompson sub-machine gun is what I want to use against the guy who busts down my door at 3:00 AM then that's what I should be allowed to use and no government beaurocrat should be telling me otherwise. Conservatives trust the people and liberals trust government, you post reflects that sentiment.
  3. jfh

    jfh Senior Member

    Aug 28, 2003
    Maple Plain, MN
    Nope, Drizzt.

    That isn't halfway down the road. The totalitarian liberal mindset is there in all its twenty-first century glory, and presented with faulty logic as well.
  4. Mr.V.

    Mr.V. Member

    Aug 31, 2005
    Los Angeles, CA
    Believe me...we liberals sure don't trust this current government. Though I can't speak for other liberals, I sure can say I don't trust anyone :scrutiny: . But I still think there should be social security... :neener:
  5. Gannet

    Gannet New Member

    Sep 5, 2005
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    This supposedly intelligent person (note how leftists LOVE to pat themselves on the back for their self-declared intelligence) apparently doesn't know that the effective combat difference between hand-held semi-automatic and automatic rifles is nil. If anything, someone who just holds the trigger down in full auto is considerably *less* likely to hit their target than someone doing controlled rapid fire. But don't confuse her with the facts.

    When the 1st Amendment was written, there was no such thing as radio or TV or the Internet, so of course it doesn't apply to them. Sheesh. :banghead:
  6. esheato

    esheato Senior Member

    Apr 8, 2003
    In regards to her article, thank God for that. ;)

  7. Matthew748

    Matthew748 Active Member

    Mar 26, 2005
    What a bunch of drivel. This is what I call back-door gun control. She claims “normal” people should be allowed to own guns. Who defines normal? I own over 25 guns, this makes me abnormal in some peoples’ eyes. I have a bone to pick with each of her points.

    Convicted felons. If a person is too dangerous to own a firearm why where they ever released? Is someone who did time doomed to a life as a second class citizen where politicians forever dictate what rights they deserve and what rights they are denied? It is a tough issue that is hard to resolve.

    Anybody whose medical records show a history of mental illness. Way to vague. Is this referring to a full fledged paranoid schizophrenic or someone who was treated for substance abuse or depression over a decade ago? People recover from what life throws at them all the time. There is no reason to beat them over the head because they had enough sense to get help when they needed it.

    Anybody on any wanted list or terrorist watch list or any list of that nature.
    This one is just great. Get yourself landed on a secret list overseen by an anonymous government entity and you are denied constitutional rights.

    No thank you. To paraphrase Lee Marvin from Death Hunt, “if you’re part of the future, I don’t want to be in it.”
  8. Spot77

    Spot77 Senior Member

    Apr 1, 2003
    Well if she truly believes in what she wrote, she'll send written testimony to the Maryland General Assembly this year arguing against ANY new forms of gun control since Maryland already has every one of her bullet points.

    And she obviously has NO CLUE about NFA and class III laws
  9. GT

    GT Member

    Feb 9, 2005
    Hmmm.... an ignorant person, convinced of their own great intelligence, with a specious argument, coming to illogical and factually insupportable conclusions.

    Who cares what she thinks, she's an idiot!

  10. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Senior Elder

    Dec 24, 2002
    Machine guns should be outlawed, and "prohibited persons" should be allowed to have firearms. To accomplish this we should pass the necessary laws and put "the government" in charge. After that no one (other then the government) will have machine guns, and the prohibited people won't either because of the laws ...

    Such a neat package. But how will it be enforced if the "bad people" won't go along with the plan?

    >> It is not the “liberal stance” that guns in themselves have the ability to kill people and are evil. <<

    Comes as news to me ... Aren't they the ones that always want to ban this or that?

    >> ... anyone who believes this nonsense, liberal or conservative, is just plain dumb. <<

    On this we agree. She may go to the head of the line.
  11. boofus

    boofus Guest

    Oh I see she thinks her opinion trumps the 2nd and 5th amendments.

    I'm government and I don't think you should have a gun so you won't!

    Whatever happened "no person will be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"? :barf:

    Maybe the government should think she shouldn't have the right of free speech. :rolleyes:
  12. zahc

    zahc Participating Member

    Mar 23, 2003
    There is absolutely no reason a person like that should have access to a high powered word processing program.
  13. Mulliga

    Mulliga Senior Member

    Jan 13, 2004
    Gainesville, Florida

  14. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Nov 8, 2004
    Spring Hill, Florida
    No, this is the new gun grabber stance you should expect to see a lot more of. He appears to have "moved towards our position" because political defeats have made them timid. Even AGS's "hunters and sportsmen" stance was revealed as being too obviously anti gun. Pieces like this are very positive developments because it means that WE are framing the debate, which ordinarily would mean automatic success unless we stop fighting.

    Expect more pieces with the following elements:
    -Statement that guns themselves are not evil and have legitimate uses
    -Claiming that the real problem is X, which has some legislative solution Y
    -Where Y is alreadly current law plus a bit that severely threatens lawful gun ownership

    In this case, the bit that threatens gun ownership is the "no guns if you get put on the terrorist watch list" which is a secret list compiled as an administrative function, unchallengeable because of "national security." No evidence of a crime need be produced, nor any reason given for your name being on the list. if Ted Kennedy has difficulty getting off this list, what do you think our chances are?
  15. MordecaiJones

    MordecaiJones New Member

    Oct 8, 2005
    I believe the 2nd amendment is designed to protect us from our own governement, should the leaders decide that they want to go against the will of the people and "take over." For that to happen, at least some of the military must be willing to go with the take over. For this reason, at least some of the population should be armed with military grade weapons (read automatic) to have a chance to resist. This is the best argument I see for freedom to purchase any weapon you want and can afford.

    I can see that there might be a desire to keep firearms out of certain people's hands (example - multiple murderers). As with all actions, there is always a down side. If you try to select people who should not have guns, the selection process can be abused, either way. It comes down to restricting freedom for safety. I personally prefer freedom instead of relying on others to protect me. I would consider a discussion on keeping firearms out of certain peoples hands, and then a law if the majority could agree. Note, I did not say the professional politicians we have for representation should vote on the law. Only by a direct vote by the people after discussion.
  16. DelayedReaction

    DelayedReaction Active Member

    May 18, 2004
    The article lost me when it said that people with a history of mental illness should be prevented from owning firearms. First of all, that's a breach of privacy. You can't just walk up and demand medical records.

    Second, who defines mental illness? Depression? Post-traumatic stress disorder? How about someone who owns a lot of guns? Paranoia?

    The fully automatic bit is just silly. I don't think fully automatic weapons should be as readily purchasable as a shotgun, but they definitely shouldn't be banned.
  17. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Senior Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    Nevada, escaped from the PDRK via Idaho.
    I'm sure things would have been a lot easier for the American Revolution had the average American had access to automatic weapons.

  18. JohnBT

    JohnBT Elder

    Dec 26, 2002
    Richmond, Virginia
    "Owning firearms should be a protected right"

    As opposed to an unprotected right?

    They really aren't automatic you know, you have to load them, aim them and pull the trigger. :)

  19. ZenMasterJG

    ZenMasterJG Member

    May 20, 2005
    Hiding between server racks, quietly sobbing.
    Microsoft Word v.50BMG?
  20. waterhouse

    waterhouse Senior Member

    Jan 7, 2005
    Round Rock, TX
    I pick my nose at least once a day and I know how easy it is. Try it sometime, and then try to buy a machine gun and let me know which one is easier.

Share This Page