So JEN, are you saying our forefathers may not have foreseen the need for fully automatic assault rifles with 30 round magazines filled with hollow point bullets to hunt quail and defend our families from butterflies? I don’t believe it. Show me one place in the Constitution that prohibits defending yourself from butterflies. Liberals!
Wow, it’s funny that Ms Sorensen thinks that Predator drones would be treated differently from fully automatic machine guns, bazookas and other such weapons which ARE illegal for private citizens to own. I guess when you don’t have all the information, you can just make up the parts you don’t know about. Any fully automatic weapon is not legal for private citizens to own. I sat on a Federal Grand Jury which indicted several people for manufacturing their own machine guns, and this was back in the mid 80s before the current “assault weapons” ban came about.
Considering the intent of the founders, it is rather a shame that such weapons are prohibited. The concern should only be if you are committing a crime or not. Responsible ownership should not be an issue.
The primary moral purpose of government is to protect individual rights against violation by the initiation of force. Since a free government cannot be omnipresent, the public has the right to self-defense and therefore to some level of weapons.
But the concept of the initiation of force includes its threatened use, and there are levels of weaponry that violate rights simply by being in private hands. (Are you more or less secure if your next-door neighbor owns a flame-thrower or an anti-tank missile launcher?)
Just where the line gets drawn is an appropriate subject for legislation; the rules for Manhattan cannot be the same as for Montana. But the heart of the issue must always be the protection of individual rights.
The above ideas should be the starting point for a rational discussion of gun control. However, the hardcore Left does not believe any of it, starting with their subordination of individual rights to the alleged rights of society or some other collective. This is enough to disqualify them from any consideration in the debate.
Yeah, Nola, such weapons are currently illegal, but the Scalia Supreme Court could change that in an instant, and then, the next nutcase assassin would wield a fully automatic machine gun, and many more people would die.
By the way, were the people you indicted found guilty?
BC, I don’t know whether they were found guilty or not. Once the Grand Jury indicts, their job on the case is done and the indictees are tried before a petit jury of their peers. But you knew that didn’t you?
Yes, I did, Nola, but stating that an indictment was made doesn’t establish that something is against the law or that someone is found guilty, but you knew that, right?
Actually BC, indictments DO establish that something is against the law. Indictments involve formally charging people with committing criminal actions, which by their definition are against the law. The petit trial establishes whether the evidence shows that the indicted person or persons committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. But then you knew that and just misspoke, correct?
Yes, Nola, the grand jury states that there is sufficient evidence that breaking the law might have happened. That doesn’t establish that a trial jury found the accused guilty of holding supposedly illegal weapons, but we needn’t argue about this any longer.
I should tell you that I was sorry to read about your son’s murder. (I don’t have your message before me. I hope that I am recalling the facts.)
I would like to think that we would agree that the Second Amendment encourages restricting guns to those who can pass background checks and mental health checks. Anyone rejected by the military for reasons of mental health is not qualified to be a member of our well-regulated militia, obviously.
In addition, all gun owners must post their contact information on-line in public websites so that our nation can call upon them in time of crisis.
I don’t know about posting info online Brian. I work as an IT type and I know how easily online databases are compromised. And we obviously agree that guns are not for everyone, my disagreement is with those who think guns are not for anyone.
And thanks for the sentiments on my son. March 19th will be 5 years since it occured and I still recall the phone call as if it were this morning. Several of his friends have retained voice mail messages of his voice or of the calls we made to tell them about it.
lewisbower over 13 years ago
So JEN, are you saying our forefathers may not have foreseen the need for fully automatic assault rifles with 30 round magazines filled with hollow point bullets to hunt quail and defend our families from butterflies? I don’t believe it. Show me one place in the Constitution that prohibits defending yourself from butterflies. Liberals!
MisngNOLA over 13 years ago
Wow, it’s funny that Ms Sorensen thinks that Predator drones would be treated differently from fully automatic machine guns, bazookas and other such weapons which ARE illegal for private citizens to own. I guess when you don’t have all the information, you can just make up the parts you don’t know about. Any fully automatic weapon is not legal for private citizens to own. I sat on a Federal Grand Jury which indicted several people for manufacturing their own machine guns, and this was back in the mid 80s before the current “assault weapons” ban came about.
DarkHorseSki over 13 years ago
Considering the intent of the founders, it is rather a shame that such weapons are prohibited. The concern should only be if you are committing a crime or not. Responsible ownership should not be an issue.
junco49 over 13 years ago
University of Ennahraay.
Freshmen Year.
Weapons 101:
Week 12
Responsible use of personal nuclear weapons. When to fire and when to not fire, simple answers to simple questions.
Week 13
Living in post post civilization. How to scare the hell out of your enemies.
pschearer Premium Member over 13 years ago
The primary moral purpose of government is to protect individual rights against violation by the initiation of force. Since a free government cannot be omnipresent, the public has the right to self-defense and therefore to some level of weapons.
But the concept of the initiation of force includes its threatened use, and there are levels of weaponry that violate rights simply by being in private hands. (Are you more or less secure if your next-door neighbor owns a flame-thrower or an anti-tank missile launcher?)
Just where the line gets drawn is an appropriate subject for legislation; the rules for Manhattan cannot be the same as for Montana. But the heart of the issue must always be the protection of individual rights.
The above ideas should be the starting point for a rational discussion of gun control. However, the hardcore Left does not believe any of it, starting with their subordination of individual rights to the alleged rights of society or some other collective. This is enough to disqualify them from any consideration in the debate.
junco49 over 13 years ago
pschearer:
I’m so glad you know everything. That lets me off the hook.
BrianCrook about 13 years ago
Yeah, Nola, such weapons are currently illegal, but the Scalia Supreme Court could change that in an instant, and then, the next nutcase assassin would wield a fully automatic machine gun, and many more people would die.
By the way, were the people you indicted found guilty?
BrianCrook about 13 years ago
Oh, Junco, if only Pschearer knew anything. That would be an improvement.
MisngNOLA about 13 years ago
BC, I don’t know whether they were found guilty or not. Once the Grand Jury indicts, their job on the case is done and the indictees are tried before a petit jury of their peers. But you knew that didn’t you?
BrianCrook about 13 years ago
Yes, I did, Nola, but stating that an indictment was made doesn’t establish that something is against the law or that someone is found guilty, but you knew that, right?
MisngNOLA about 13 years ago
Actually BC, indictments DO establish that something is against the law. Indictments involve formally charging people with committing criminal actions, which by their definition are against the law. The petit trial establishes whether the evidence shows that the indicted person or persons committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. But then you knew that and just misspoke, correct?
BrianCrook about 13 years ago
Yes, Nola, the grand jury states that there is sufficient evidence that breaking the law might have happened. That doesn’t establish that a trial jury found the accused guilty of holding supposedly illegal weapons, but we needn’t argue about this any longer.
I should tell you that I was sorry to read about your son’s murder. (I don’t have your message before me. I hope that I am recalling the facts.)
I would like to think that we would agree that the Second Amendment encourages restricting guns to those who can pass background checks and mental health checks. Anyone rejected by the military for reasons of mental health is not qualified to be a member of our well-regulated militia, obviously.
In addition, all gun owners must post their contact information on-line in public websites so that our nation can call upon them in time of crisis.
MisngNOLA about 13 years ago
I don’t know about posting info online Brian. I work as an IT type and I know how easily online databases are compromised. And we obviously agree that guns are not for everyone, my disagreement is with those who think guns are not for anyone.
And thanks for the sentiments on my son. March 19th will be 5 years since it occured and I still recall the phone call as if it were this morning. Several of his friends have retained voice mail messages of his voice or of the calls we made to tell them about it.