For those in this thread who are whining about clip sizes, I had to post what I found out about a friend’s wife who wasn’t at our people-who-love-swinging-swords party last night.
She was out hunting deer.
With a flintlock.
That she built herself.
The venison she brings home for food since she has alergies to chicken and cow meat (didn’t ask him why - maybe the antibiotics dumped in them?)
When I heard that I just had this mental image of her carefully adding powder, stalking, waiting for that one perfect shot…
and Wildest Bill comes charging up, blazing away with a banana clip like Rambo. EAT HOT METAL DEATH, DEER! BWAHAHAHAHA!
Before some people nail me on that one, I’m aware that many areas have limits on the types of guns n clips you can hunt deer with.
Just made for an amusing anachronistic image for me…
I can only express awe at your ability to get so worked up over something like this. Really.
**
First off, what I originally wrote was the product of thinking faster than I could type. What I meant to say was “While I feel that the motives of those seeking such weapons are suspect…”, not that I agree with anyone else on the matter.
It is my opinion that many gun control opponents use the 2nd amendment to justify their purchase of any weapon they feel like, simply because they feel it is a God-given right to own one. It does, after all, say so, right in the Constitution! Here, let’s read it again, shall we?
Now, first off, I’d like to point out that this is all one sentence, not two separate ones. Now, I admit that this is my own personal interpretation, but this is how I see it: the 2nd amendment refers to the right to bear arms in the context of the possibility of the necessity of calling forth a milita. As such, the government should not restrict the people’s rights to obtain said arms - if it did, then if it ever became necessary to muster a militia, we might be in trouble. However, most folks feel this means they are entitled to own whatever weapons they want, for whatever purposes they choose. And, hey, I can’t stop anyone from believing that, nor am I trying to.
I agree that assault weapons are a darn good choice for said militia, especially since any foreign invader is likely to be using them. However, I stand by my statement that very few individuals who purchase these weapons do so with the possible defense of their nation in mind. In that context, I do not see how anyone can justify owning one, simply because outside of a military role, they are unnecessary, and very dangerous in the wrong hands.
Now, I do not wish to imply that your hands are the wrong hands. If you have received sufficient training in the safe use of the weapon, then I commend you. However, I cannot be certain that everyone who chooses to purchase one of these weapons will be of like mind. And that concerns me.
**
Again, I don’t see why you choose to get so worked up about this. We are, you know, arguing different viewpoints. I simply feel that the 2nd amendment is not blanket permission for everyone to own whatever sort of firearm they choose, to do whatever they choose with. It’s no skin off my back if you disagree with me, nor should it be any skin off yours because I disagree with you. Sheesh!
**
And I am attempting to explain my side politely as well…
**
Well, this may piss you off even further (though it is not intedned to do so), but I feel it is my right to question the intent of those purchasing weapons of this sort. Many criminals, in fact, do purchase their weapons legally, so I don’t buy your “anybody who legally buys a firearm is by definition a law abiding citizen” statement.
**
I realize I may be coming off as a stubborn gun-control zealot here, but I assure you that is not the case. I simply prefer a more literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment (specifically, that it is meant to ensure the existence of a militia, not that it gives blanket permission for citizens to own any sort of weapon, regardless of how it will be used). Many people, especially gun owners, apparently feel differently. I also realize that my interpretation is probably impossible to translate into any meaningful law.
I will conclude, then, by stating that I am opposed to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, but not for the reasons stated in the OP.