Joel McNally: gun grabbing moron
Joel McNally writes a stupid column, here:
http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/dec/02/gun-owners-aiming-shoot-government/
proposing various violations of the Constitution. And my response...
http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/dec/02/gun-owners-aiming-shoot-government/
proposing various violations of the Constitution. And my response...
The only restriction that is constitutional, Joel, and that is "common sense", is that it is okay to ban a firearm for civilian use, SO LONG AS said use is also banned of the military and banned of law enforcement.
I will cite as an example, the sawed off shotgun. That is illegal. No one is allowed to have them, at least, not in operational order anyway. But the military doesn't carry them and neither do the police. So I am perfectly comfortable with that.
I need to point out the second amendment was not about hunting, nor was it really about crime per se. It was about allowing civilians to arm themselves so that in case invasion, insurrection, or some other oppressive tyranny eventuated, the populace could form militias to dispel said offenses, and the governor of a state could call loosely formed militias and those with militia weapons into service. The state, and the country, wouldn't have to issue firearms or train in firearms: the populace would already be at the ready.
That "such a thing could never happen" is an absurdity. I live thirty miles from the Mexican border. Border towns all across Mexico are rife with the violence of the drug cartels. This is not something of history books. It is real, in real time, today. There is a far greater risk that I will fall victim to a Mexican Zeta than I ever will fall victim to an Osama bin Laden plot. If you somehow think that citizens in Southern Arizona should NOT have the right to match the firepower of the drug lords, you sir, are a blooming idiot, and I am saying that about as politely as I can, and you and people who think like you are as big a danger to this country as the Mexican drug lords.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you about "this weapon" or "that weapon" and whether it is proper for a civilian to own said weapon. I will simply flatly say that if a weapon should be banned for possession by the common populace, it should be banned for use by our military and by our police, and not just by OUR military, but it is something that should be banned internationally. We have some weapons that are so banned. Nerve gas, mustard gas, anthrax, Ricin, for example. It is not only illegal for the populace to use them, it is illegal in war for any military to use them. It is a war crime.
And given the inequity of power between militaries and the common people, I believe if there is to be any weapons confiscation, then the first to be disarmed must be the military and law enforcement. Only after all such agencies have turned in and destroyed all of THEIR weapons of a given type, will I even entertain the concept that the common man should give theirs up as well. Again, this must happen worldwide, and there should be no exception for the elites.
But this is the problem with you people. You believe these firearms are dangerous in OUR hands, yet you dismiss the fact that they are JUST AS DANGEROUS, probably even moreso, in the hands of law enforcement, and also as dangerous in the hands of our military.
You may call it a "harmless fantasy" about The People rising up to throw off their abusive government. Ya know who the author of that "harmless fantasy" was? Thomas Jefferson. I think I need to remind you about exactly how this country was founded. That "harmless fantasy" about shooting government officials had a name in 1776. It was called the American Revolution. The first five presidents of the United States were active participants in that "harmless fantasy".
In other words, the United States of America was founded by people who rose up against their standing oppressive government, and they "shot the bastards".
Yes, the radicals never did move to "overthrow" Bush and his cronies. I was disappointed for sure. But let me ask you a question. Why does the Left, always aim "gun control" at The People. Why haven't they moved to disarm the police and disarm the military? Especially when you all are saying that the military was improperly killing so many innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do you never move to take THEIR weapons away?
And before assuming what you think is the obvious, log onto my blog and check out whose picture sits on top. I assure you that probably millions of people of my party believe exactly as I do.
Liz Michael
blog.lizmichael.com
blog.lizmichael.com
You wrote "... the sawed off shotgun. That is illegal. No one is allowed to have them, at least, not in operational order anyway. But the military doesn't carry them ..."
The "trench shotgun" or "trench broom" has a long history of use in the military. The barrel in military use is often shorter than the usual hunting shotgun - i.e. "sawed off" in your terminology.
One shotgun currently used by the US military is described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossberg_500 which includes the spec Barrel length 14 to 28 inches
At the shorter end of that range (i.e. under 18"), this shotgun is indeed "sawed off", i.e. comes under the NFA (National Firearms Act) of 1934.
So this isn't illegal for the military.
It isn't actually illegal for you or me to own a short-barreled-shotgun, it just takes a license from the BATFE. It is costly and time-consuming to get such a license, so there are probably quite few out there.
I think your overall point is valid, even if some of the details aren't quite correct.
Reply to this
Good site.
keep up the good work
peace
d
Reply to this
The thing about 2A is that is estabilshes the right of Americans to bear arms.
It doesn't say what kind. It doesn't say "hunting rifles but not cannons." It doesn't say "swords but not flintlocks."
Arms. If you look that up as it was defined in the late 1700s, you quickly learn that what the so-called founding fathers had in mind was so far beyond what even most RKBA folks imagine, it's to laugh. I.e., whatever technologies of armament any citizen wanted, on the grounds that they might be required to take a stand against despots in government or outside the nation. Period.
Reply to this
"the military doesn't carry them and neither do the police. So I am perfectly comfortable with that."
Actually, the military and police regularly carry shotguns with barrels shorter than 18" which is the minimum required barrel length for "civilians", i.e., citizens. The USSC Miller case involving the National Firearms Act of 1934 only held that the federal government could tax the transfer of short-barreled shotguns and machineguns, not that they could prohibit them outright. Reagan's 1986 foolish acquiesence to the appeasers at the NRA only prevented the public sale of newly manufactured machineguns, not the taxable transfer of those already in circulation. The license to obtain a short-barreled shotgun is a recognition that the required transfer tax has been paid and involved an ATF background check, the payment of a $5 "other weapon" tax (may have increased), and is usually subject to vague objections from local police (unconstitutional). So you should not be "comfortable".
Reply to this