I must’ve missed those parts of the Constitution. You might disagree about the scope of the 2nd, but you can’t forget that it exists, and certain other “rights” aren’t enumerated.
“Assault weapons” are identical to, or weaker than, regular hunting rifles. If you are referring to magazine capacity, many states already put limits on that for hunting, thus at least in those places, anyone “spray[ing] a cloud of bullets” is doing something illegal. But beyond that, the firing rate isn’t much affected. Also, I don’t know many people who use the hunting argument.
Also, I almost (meaning not really, but it does mean lowered reliability) want every mass killer to bring the largest magazine possible. When I heard Loughner brought a AR-15 100 round drum magazine, I though to myself, “I bet it jammed on him.” That apparently happened. He was still able to do a lot of destruction otherwise, unfortunately.
Why should I give a flying fuck about someone’s opinion just because he’s a Marine? All that letter shows is that it doesn’t take a lot of intellect to make it into the Corps, the letter is quite poorly written. You might well ask why your obsession with a metallic phallus should be allowed to interfere with our right to live.
Ooh, a MARINE said it! Oooooooohhhhh, golly golly golly! Oooooooooh, gush gush gush. Let us all fall to our knees for the mandatory verbal fellation that our wonderful wonderful troops deserve!
Yes, it’s very creepy. The whole diatribe struck me as fascistic.
and, yes, a U.S. senator is a servant of the people. A member of the armed services is also a servant of the people. In fact, the latter is a servant serving under the authority of the former. So, the letter writer is, in fact, a lower-ranked servant.
If his point is that he’s a citizen, well, so is a U.S. senator, so they’re equal in that respect. aceplace57, what about this letter caused you to endorse it? That the guy put a senator in her place? That he will refuse to obey the law if it is enacted? That the dude was a soldier, and so his rant is more worthy of note than the scrawlings of an ordinary citizen?
ETA: ah, on review, it looks like it’s because there are ex-soldiers who don’t want to give up guns, and their opinions count more. Gotcha. Won’t someone think of the veterans!
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, any time someone uses “I am a veteran” as part of a policy argument, it’s reprehensible.
Not all veterans. I spent two years in the Navy and never once did I ever handle a live weapon. The closest I got was a disabled weapon that we used for drill. Hell, I’ve known a lot of fellow veterans who never handled a live weapon, either. If there’s no reason for you to use a gun, you won’t receive that training.
That being said, veterans aren’t any more special than anyone else just because they’re vets. We have the same problems as anyone else, and there are people who happen to be veterans who shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun, just as some non-veterans shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun. Vets don’t deserve to own a gun just because they’re vets; they should have to satisfy the same criteria a non-vet does. If a vet shows himself (or herself) to be mentally unstable enough to prevent his buying a gun, then so be it.
True dat. In fact, former combat vets are more likely to be unstable than the ordinary citizen. Not to the point of shooting up a school, but the percentage of vets with mental baggage has got to be higher than that of the non-vet group. As a retired vet myself, who fired most of the weapons in the military arsenal of the time, I can say that while I respect military service, it doesn’t accord me or anyone any special privileges under the law.
The muster of the Continental Marines in 1775 causes some to say proudly that there was a Marine Corps before there was a United States. Some of those “some” are going to take that to its logical conclusion.
The Marines are an elite warrior caste created to serve a democratic republic. Most serve it with loyalty and humility, but there will always be a certain number with contempt for those who are not the warrior elite.
What a kook…there ain’t no way, that anyone will stand for such silliness as a gun ban again…There are more checks heading to the NRA right now than Nobama could ever imagine. No Hitler, No Stalin,…NOBAMA !!
Your missing the point. The analogy was spurious. You could’ve named any crime which some people do, even troll the internet for some of those questionable “men may not have moustaches from February to August in Podunk, IN” type lists.
Also, alcohol is part of an amendment, not the original document, so it has been changed (twice.) And I don’t believe slavery is mentioned at all except to abolish it in the 13th. All the Constitution says is “three fifths of all other Persons.”
She’s smarter now and more dangerous. The bill shes talking about now is against assualt weapons. But I’d bet that she won’t stop there. She’s been looking for the right opportunity for a long time.
Incidentally, this particular rendition of the Assault Weapons Ban is (IMO) dead on arrival. Why? She thinks that the Newtown shootings have changed things so much that she can ask for the sun, moon and stars. The bill, as submitted, is far too overreaching.
For instance: she wants every single existing “assault weapon” to be reclassified as an NFA weapon, requiring every single one of them to be registered with the BATFE. Anyone want to estimate the cost of running full background checks on every single owner? The NRA loved seeing her propose that, I promise you.