Is it any surprise to anyone that Obama is seeking a new ban on Assault Weapons. Clearly I see this as a violation of the 2nd Amendment! Others, like the Obama administration, claim that this will promote safety and reduce violence. I'm not entirely sure as to what they have read from history and even present day facts but it will not cut down on violence.
What good did prohibition do? It forced the sale and consumption of alcohol to go underground. It didn't go away and tax revenue was lost on its sales. Banning the sale of Assault weapons is only going to stop upstanding citizens from purchasing them. The criminals and people the government want's to stop from having them will still obtain them in the underground market.
This will accomplish nothing but take away our constitutionally give right to bear arms!
Here is the full article on the matter. Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Goodbye to the 2nd Amendment
Posted by Nate at 12:11 PM
Labels: 2nd Amendment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
They're called "assault" weapons for a reason.
Obviously, the Constitution is interpreted differently by us all.
Chris, you should be careful what laws you support especially when it takes away freedom.
What is so wrong about me owning an assault weapon? I'm not going to attack people with it. I want it because I like to shoot those kind of guns at harmless targets, as a hobby. Also, it is great for self defense if the occasion calls for it.
But enough about me and what average citizens want, what about law enforcement? If the law bans assault weapons that means that the police and law enforcement agencies can have them either. When cops go up against criminal with a 9 millimeter and a shotgun it is no match for the criminals fully automatic assault rifle with armor piercing rounds.
But how is that possible if the law bans them? Well like I said before criminals and terrorists will get these kind of weapons whether they are outlawed or not. The market goes underground and the people this law is meant to deter will still get the weapons and the law proves as being ineffective and a re stricter of freedom.
I want the cops to be able to have the fire power to match those criminals or they will get slaughtered. For example have you ever heard of the North Hollywood Shootout? If not look it up on Wikipedia. The history channel also did a special on it. But in summary it was a bank robbery that ended victorious for the police be at great cost of lives both cops and civilians because they were outgunned with fire power. There were only two robbers but there were plenty of police to take them down but couldn't.
I think my points stand strong as to why this law would be bad for America but most importantly unconstitutional for it restricts freedom.
What's so wrong with me getting my hands on a M198 Howitzer? I mean, I'm not going to use it - just put it on display in my backyard, right next to the fountain and the statue of Venus.
Let's put the second amendment into context.
The Constitution speaks of our right to "bear arms". Now, back in 1776, "arms" consisted of the musket, rifle, pistol, and very sharp knives. Well trained soldiers were expected to fire a shot every 15 seconds.
AK-47s have a capacity of firing 150 rounds in 15 seconds.
Do you see the destructive difference here? Do you honestly think the Founding Fathers foresaw such a machine?
I believe the Constitution to be a fluid document, used as a guideline for the protection of principles, not as a confined law literally interpreted. I believe that's how the founding fathers designed it to be.
I think this ban honors the principle outlined in the 2nd Amendment, which is: citizens need to have the ability to protect themselves with weapons.
You have an array of perfectly suitable and efficient weapons you can use to protect your household. In my opinion, an AK-47 doesn't need to be among those.
If this ban is initiated properly, then certain exceptions should be made for law enforcement, to equip them sufficiently so another Hollywood shootout does not occur again.
Freedom is also interpreted differently by us all. You say it restricts freedom...well, that's the price you pay for living in what we call "society".
You might interpret this ban as a restriction on your freedom, but others feel this ban gives them freedom. So there's winners and losers. Life explained.
That is the essence of community, of citizenship. We each have to give and take until we come to a consensus, a compromise, that ensures maximum protection while still guaranteeing personal freedom within reason.
There will always be restrictions on "freedom". Or, you could just change your perspective. A ban on assault weapons could be an enhancement rather than a restriction. For me, it is the former.
It is funny that with every response you fail to acknowledge that criminals will still get these weapons regardless. After all isn't that what this law is suppose to do, take these weapons from those that will misuse them.
People like you own them for historical value or for hobby related purposes will never misuse them but of course it is us the law abiding citizens that will suffer from this law and not the criminals.
You interpret the 2nd amendment differently than I but the fact remains that this law will accomplish absolutely NOTHING!
And one more thing, you say "
I believe the Constitution to be a fluid document, used as a guideline for the protection of principles, not as a confined law literally interpreted." You are confining the definition of arms to weapons of the 1700's!
Obviously I can't and shouldn't own a nuke or a howitzer, but semi-automatic assault rifles I should be able to own.
What I meant by my statement about the Constitution being a fluid document is this: being fluid, it should be interpreted according to the times in which the interpreters live. So, in 1776, "arms" were practically any weapon they found lying around. The selection was somewhat limited.
Today, the selection of weaponry is virtually limitless. Therefore, some type of regulation is needed to interpret what the Constitution means TODAY with the words "arms".
The Obama Administration is interpreting "arms" to mean NOT assault weapons. This is an example of the Constitution being a fluid document. Obviously, allowing modern-day citizens to protect themselves with no more than a musket and a butter knife would be silly.
Yes, no law can stop criminals from getting whatever they want....even enriched uranium. But that doesn't mean we should legalize enriched uranium and allow Walmart to sell it.
But under the same premise, then, we should legalize drugs and prostitution. That means tax revenue and employee protection, as well as rights for those who engage in those activities. And best of all, we're not restricting anybody's freedom! It's a win/win situation.
So why don't we legalize those things? Because the majority of our society has determined that those things are not conducive to a healthy, safe society. Therefore, they're illegal....but not gone. Drug industry is big business here. And let's not forget the child prostitution ring the FBI busted this week. Both activities are alive and well in America, despite laws.
So yes, the ban isn't going to stop criminals, but initiating a ban is more than stopping criminals. It's about principles. It's about society condoning it or not condoning it.
So just like our society has determined, under principle, that drugs and prostitution are bad, so has our society also determined that AK-47s fit into that same category.
Your argument has a false analogy.
Tell me how owning an AK-47 is unhealthy or immoral which is the premise you inferred to support why we have laws prohibiting prostitution and drugs?
It is not an equal comparison and neither is your Wal-mart analogy with enriched uranium.
Why do we prohibit prostitution?
It's legal in other developed countries, like Germany. So why not here?
Is it illegal for economic reasons? No. Creates jobs, brings in the tourists, etc. Lots of money involved there, which means tax revenue as well. Just think of all the extra funds for school districts!
Is it illegal for health reasons? Not really. In other places, it's highly regulated, providing a safe atmosphere for both employees and clients, including protection rights for both parties involved. In fact, some would argue that it enhances overall moral of a community, as it comforts and pacifies those who would otherwise slump into destructive depression on account of their terrible lives, lose their jobs and add to the local poverty rate. Yes, you understood my inference here: prostitution helps maintain the poverty status quo.
Is it illegal for political reasons? Ask Elliot Spitzer that question.
So from a business standpoint, legalizing prostitution makes all the sense in the world. Money, low health risks, keeps people happy, and it works in other countries. So why not here? In fact, keeping it illegal restricts freedom. The right we all have to use our discretionary money the way we want. Why should you care that your neighbor pays for sex? It doesn't affect you.
It is illegal because it is against the principles upon which our culture exists. The majority of American's disagree with it, therefore it's illegal. So even though it offers economic benefits, we as a society do not want to officially condone it. Simple as that. Based on principle.
Now, so much for dwelling on that for so long.
Illegal drug use is similar, except for the health part. Other than that, it makes fantastic economic sense.
Similarly, a ban on AK-47s is only based on principle, which is: the government (which ought to represent the will of the majority of Americans, yet such is not always the case)...the government feels that an AK-47 is too destructive of a weapon to condone the commercial sale of it in public markets. Simple as that.
It is a fair comparison because I'm not comparing the acts of prostitution and the acts of shooting an AK-47, but comparing the fact that both are restricted due to cultural norms, from which principles are created.
I'm not saying its immoral to own and shoot an AK-47. What I'm saying is the ban puts a principally-based restriction on the use of it, just like prostitution and drug use have principally-based restrictions on their usage, albeit different principles are involved with each one.
I hope I've made myself clear this time. If you can think of another example of a law based on principle, substitute that for my examples. It might therefore be easier to understand.
Lastly, my Walmart example may have been a cheap shot. What I'm saying is this: just like a common citizen can't easily obtain enriched uranium (not available at Walmart) one shouldn't be able to, in a similar fashion, easily obtain an AK-47 either. That's my biased opinion of course and I have a feeling I'm not the only one.
I could say the same about murder and theft. Why should you care that your neighbor murdered someone else or stole from a shopping mart? It doesn't affect you.
I'll bet you that if there was a public vote taken that the majority would vote not in favor of this ban. So, in reality the government, AKA the Obama Administration, are doing what that think is "good principle" for the Nation even though the people disagree.
This is why I didn't vote for him. We do not share the same principles and values. I'll be willing to bet that even though Obama won the election that the majority would vote against this ban if a vote was held.
The things you outlined above goes to show just how corrupt government and politicians can be. They are willing to sacrifice principles for increased tax revenue and so called "overall moral of a community" or safer conditions for those involve in questionable acts and behavior. Who cares if it might "comfort and pacifies those who would otherwise slump into destructive depression on account of their terrible lives, lose their jobs and add to the local poverty rate." I could say that Joe would be much better off and contribute more to society if he is just allowed to murder his boss. That is crazy and against principle.
Politicians compromise their principles all the time in order to secure the next election. This is why I am a big believer in term limits and I think it should only be One Term allowed!
Our government hasn't been based on principle in a long time! EVery decision it makes is based on elections, personal interests, and economics. Hardly is it based on principle any more. Clearly you can see that the premises you used to show why it is good to legalize prostitution and drugs were solely reasons based on economics and personal interests and not principle.
Without principle and values society will come crashing down! Look at Rome, look at the Soviet Union, look at the Jaredites and Nephites!
My owning a AK-47 does not degrade society and bring it down to where there are no principles and values governing it as would prostitution and drugs.
Every action has a consequence whether it is immediate or later down the road. I cringe as to what would happen to our nation if we where to legalize such immoral practices.
Owning an AK-47 is not a act of immorality and as far as I'm concerned my right to own one is constitutionally protected.
I don't think you can say the same thing about murder and theft. With murder, you're taking away someone's life without their consent. Theft, you are taking away someone's possession without their consent. That isn't the case with the examples I used, which all involve mutual, consensual monetary transactions.
If Joe's boss consented to Joe killing him, then that's one thing, but you can't compare the principle governing murder with what we're talking about here.
Yes, our government has struggled with principle. But, I've outlined two areas where our government has been successful in upholding good principle: prostitution and drugs.
My point was to show that our government is capable of acting on principle with those two examples. Similarly, in my opinion, it has also acted according to principle in banning assault weapons.
All I was trying to do was to explain, from my point of view, why the ban was signed. That's why I brought up prostitution and drugs: to help explain that the ban wasn't written based on any other reason other than principle.
You don't have to agree with that principle, and I don't expect you to. I was just venturing to explain the reason for the ban. I think it goes beyond simply a desire on the part of the government to limit personal freedom.
If freedom was the ultimate rule, then prostitution would be legal. But since even freedom has limits, laws are enacted and society conforms.
Besides, just wait another decade or so and the ban will expire and life will continue....or you could just move to Ukraine where AK-47s are on every corner.
Post a Comment