but I just have to pick....
agreed, circular logic;
machine guns are not common because the govt restricts them.
Because they are not common, the govt has a right to restrict them.
Going back to the example of the Revolution, and the years shortly afterward, one can find privately owned cannon, and even warships.
re: Letters of Marque
you can own artillery, without restrictions. What you cannot own is the ammunition. You can own a tank, or a bomber (if you have the money). Again, what is restricted is the explosive ordnance. (and the machine guns)
Some people like to take this part of the reasoning to the ridiculous extreme adding nuclear weapons. After all, they are arms too, right?
The broadest libertarian view of that argument would have to be, yes, the government does not have the authority to prohibit you from owning them. This agreement automatically creates horror amongst even the strongest 2nd Amendment supporters, after all, your talkin NUKES!
But it
ought to be the way things are, if we were a truly free society. The govt doesn't need (and shouldn't have) a law that says you are prohibited from owning a nuke. If you could build one, using "special nuclear material" that you dug up in your back yard, you should have the legal right to own it. And that's the only way you could own one, without violating dozens of other existing laws. No need for a ban, when they are all property of the govt, and have never been allowed for sale. If you got one, it is stolen, so the law covers that. No ban needed. Buy one overseas? Even legally (as if that was possible?) Law says no import. Already covered, no ban law needed. Do you see my point here? Seems like no body ever looks that far, all they see is NUKE and of course we need laws saying people can't own them. Its already covered.
Like machineguns. Don't shoot people for fun and profit, there's no problem. Do shoot people for fun and profit, well, we already have laws saying you can't do that, and have had for centuries.
Quote:
|
It would seem reasonable, given the relatively indiscriminate threat risk that fully automatic weapons present, that there may be an elevated level of training, screening, and regulation required beyond that required for more common defensive weapons.
|
ok, this one bothers me a little. Not that I disagree with the idea that people ought to have some training on the things they own, or that the govt shouldn't screen/regulate ownership of firearms to some degree (we're never going to get that undone) but the phrasing....
a) "reasonable" - a word that in my half century of watching these things, always seems to precede us getting shafted. granted, its a small thing, but even small things have weight.
b) "relatively indiscriminate threat risk that fully automatic weapons present," I don't see this as an accurate statement. It is an emotional value judgement. How is the potential carnage of someone dumping 30 rnds pulling and holding the trigger be worse than them doing the same thing pulling the trigger 30 times as fast as they can? And I doubt we would see a rash of belt fed drive bys either.
c) "beyond that required for more common defensive weapons. " OK, we're back to the circular logic again. They aren't common because we regulate them tightly, so we have to regulate them tightly because they aren't common!
Quote:
|
But to outright or effectively ban the exact weapon which the government has chosen defend our nation at home and abroad, and which the government freely puts into the hands of every 18 year old capable of signing his or her name, seems to me completely and monumentally antithetical to the purpose, intent, and deepest meaning of the Second Amendment, and such, should be completely taken off the table as a policy choice.
|
Agreed. Completely. An excellent summation of the kind of things I have been saying since the govt put an M16A1 in my hands, to defend truth, justice, the American way, and incidentally enforce the policy decisions of the administration. If there is any gun that should be completely unrestricted for citizens to own, it is the one the govt forces citizens to use to carry out its will, which is, under our system supposed to be, the will of the people.
note: this whole thing is meant to be constructive, but its late, and I'm in rant mode, so if it comes off as critical, I do apologize. Bite me.