I missed the chance to talk about a milestone from Monday: the assault weapon ban
. From what I understand of the issue, and from the passionate papers my students have written on the topic, I think that's a good thing.
It is a good thing if you want more firepower than the police.
Drug dealers and gang members will be the first to benefit from the Bush admininistrations cave in to the NRA with increased firepower.
Sportsmen on the other hand don't need assualt weapons to increase the advantages they already have over bambi.
Terrorists will be interested in buying them. For obvious reasons.
Law abiding wimps may want to own one for an ego boost. But really who cares enough about their self-esteem issues to put our homeland in such risk?
Posted by: dc at September 15, 2004 10:42 AM (s6c4t)
There was one time in American history that was considered the safest. Do you want to know when?
The so-called Wild West, because men and women had guns, wore them openly and criminals knew that if they acted up, it would be the citizens that would take care of them. It isn't about egos, but about the ability to defend yourself. I find it offensive when Kennedy-Townshed said she would not rest until the 38 special was banned. I say, how can she be so elitist. The 38 special is an inexpensive gun and thereby gives poor people the opportunity to protect themselves, especially if they live in dangerous neighborhoods.
Just remember, take guns away from lawful citizens, and you'll only welcome the likes of Hitler and Stalin who disarmed its population in order to take it over.
Posted by: Moor at September 15, 2004 03:45 PM (xvwyL)
Everyone thinks that now you can go out and by assault weapons. The only thing that really changed was the size of the magazines you can purchase. Instead of only getting a ten round magazine for a pistol, now you can get the fifteen round ones the police and military use. As far as assault weapons go, you have always been able to purchase AK-47's, AR-15's, etc...
Posted by: Birdie at September 15, 2004 07:01 PM (ohCKH)
Hitler never disarmed the population, where did you get that idea anyway? Another obvious counterpoint to your logic would be Iraq. Every Iraqi has a gun, but they never usurped Saddam.
On the other hand, Ghandi didn't have a gun, but still managed to get rid of the British.
Anyway, different situations demand different solutions (and although I doubt your stats on the Wild West, I agree that a gun is quite useful in such a situation). The 2nd amendment made sense in the time it was written, but unless you believe there is an impending attack by either the government or another superpower, your final statement is wholly without merit.
Posted by: Sander at September 15, 2004 10:58 PM (3nJmx)
Actually in Tombstone Arizona, the site of the famous story of the shootout at the OK corral, it was against the law to carry a gun in the city.
The story is essentially one of gun controll. Sheriff Virgil Earp, along with his two deputized brothers and friend Doc Holiday were just trying to disarm some armed cowboys who would not give up there guns so a gun fight broke out and they killed them. Then they took the cowboys guns, pried from their dead cold fingers.
Posted by: dc at September 16, 2004 02:31 AM (s6c4t)
| Add Comment