The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

alan · December 10, 2004, 04:45 PM

SIG-FAN:

1. I had mentioned YOUR reference to the Miller case. I had made reference to this "needs" as opposed to "wants" business.

2. Maryland is one of those limits on magazine capacity states. I do not know why they bother, other than to say that Maryland has some strange laws. I also believe that Maryland forbids the ownership of automatic weapons to private citizens. Not all states do. Pennsylvania, where I currently live, does not forbid such ownership, though federal clearance is still required. Then there is the question of cost. Resulting from ill advised federal legislation passed in 1986, the cost of transferable automatic weapons has increased sharply. This has been mentioned in a previous post, which you might have seen. Limits on magazine capacity are no longer a part of federal law, as the Assault Weapons Ban, an example of legislative foolishness, expired on 13 September 2004.

3. As to your question regarding "what is the big deal of a permission for guns ...", interesting question there. In my view, it becomes a question of principle and philosophy. Government is the servant, not the master of the people and the individual citizen. Some would have it that government is the master, an idea that I and many others disagree with. So, when an inherently individual right, that being the right of self defense, a right that must include the ability to possess and acquire such personal weapons as are suitable to ones defense of self and family, is reduced to a privilege for which government permission must be sought, essential rights are lost, for the government can, one day grant permission, while denying it the next day, or it can selectively grant or deny permission. In such case, the government has become the master, while the citizens are servants, or worse. I find this less than acceptable. "The German Way" might well work for you. That does not mean that it would work for others, nor does it mean that others would, given the option, choose as you have.

4. As to "compromising" with the gun haters, which you also asked about, consider this. When an individual or group(s) have repeatedly and publicly stated that it is their intention and ultimate goal to destroy rights, usage and traditions that you hold dear, such is the case with what you describe as the "gun haters" in the U.S., how could you possibly consider "compromise" with them? Additionally, when in the past, you had attempted to "compromise" with them it turned out to be a "one way street", for while they took whatever you offered, they always came back for more. Where is even the possibility of compromise, compromise being a situation where each side gives up something?

5. I have no idea as to the murder rate in Germany, so I will take your word for the number you mentioned. Regarding the output of Mr. Moore, given his demonstrated tendencies toward a certain looseness with the facts, I would not put to much faith in his output.

December 10, 2004, 04:45 PM	#29
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	SIG-FAN: 1. I had mentioned YOUR reference to the Miller case. I had made reference to this "needs" as opposed to "wants" business. 2. Maryland is one of those limits on magazine capacity states. I do not know why they bother, other than to say that Maryland has some strange laws. I also believe that Maryland forbids the ownership of automatic weapons to private citizens. Not all states do. Pennsylvania, where I currently live, does not forbid such ownership, though federal clearance is still required. Then there is the question of cost. Resulting from ill advised federal legislation passed in 1986, the cost of transferable automatic weapons has increased sharply. This has been mentioned in a previous post, which you might have seen. Limits on magazine capacity are no longer a part of federal law, as the Assault Weapons Ban, an example of legislative foolishness, expired on 13 September 2004. 3. As to your question regarding "what is the big deal of a permission for guns ...", interesting question there. In my view, it becomes a question of principle and philosophy. Government is the servant, not the master of the people and the individual citizen. Some would have it that government is the master, an idea that I and many others disagree with. So, when an inherently individual right, that being the right of self defense, a right that must include the ability to possess and acquire such personal weapons as are suitable to ones defense of self and family, is reduced to a privilege for which government permission must be sought, essential rights are lost, for the government can, one day grant permission, while denying it the next day, or it can selectively grant or deny permission. In such case, the government has become the master, while the citizens are servants, or worse. I find this less than acceptable. "The German Way" might well work for you. That does not mean that it would work for others, nor does it mean that others would, given the option, choose as you have. 4. As to "compromising" with the gun haters, which you also asked about, consider this. When an individual or group(s) have repeatedly and publicly stated that it is their intention and ultimate goal to destroy rights, usage and traditions that you hold dear, such is the case with what you describe as the "gun haters" in the U.S., how could you possibly consider "compromise" with them? Additionally, when in the past, you had attempted to "compromise" with them it turned out to be a "one way street", for while they took whatever you offered, they always came back for more. Where is even the possibility of compromise, compromise being a situation where each side gives up something? 5. I have no idea as to the murder rate in Germany, so I will take your word for the number you mentioned. Regarding the output of Mr. Moore, given his demonstrated tendencies toward a certain looseness with the facts, I would not put to much faith in his output.