Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Guns for Hunting People Are Different: Legislation Should Reflect That [View all]
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/guns-for-hunting-people-are-different-legislation-should-reflect-that/276182/
As a gun guy who's also a journalist and professor in a town sometimes called "The Peoples Republic of Ann Arbor," I meet plenty of people who think I should be ashamed of myself. But in failing to address the challenges presented by the latest massacre of innocents, United States senators have done what nobody else has managed to do: make me, for the first time, truly embarrassed about the company I'm lumped with, including theirs.
In most states, it is illegal to hunt animals or birds with more than six rounds in a rifle or three in a shotgun. Why? Because if you can't kill within those limits you need remedial marksmanship (of the sort NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. La Pierre reportedly required to bring him up to snuff). If you've got ten or even 30-shot replaceable clips, then you're holding arms for hunting humans--equipment that brings the Second Amendment face to face with the First Commandment.
I suspect that one reason indirect controls like tightened background checks repeatedly fail is that lots of people don't think they will be sufficiently effective. Neither do I. Assault rifles are rifles of mass destruction. We shouldn't be trying to make it safe to have them on the street. It's too late for that. We need to restrict homicide weapons to those licensed to hunt humans, in law enforcement and the military.
One way to do that is to change manufacturing standards for guns as we did in barring vehicles without seatbelts or catalytic converters. Civilian weapons should be required to conform to the more humane rules for hunting game. No amount of legislative fiddling will prevent Rambo-styles clips from replacing small ones if the structure of the gun isn't changed. The answer is to return long guns to traditional magazines internal to the weapons, themselves, limited to hunting restrictions.
74 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Guns for Hunting People Are Different: Legislation Should Reflect That [View all]
xchrom
May 2013
OP
Some guns are clearly for hunting humans and some 501(c)(4)s are Republican Fronts.
onehandle
May 2013
#1
They are "weapons of mass destruction" in our country. They are coveted for their killing power.
Hoyt
May 2013
#24
"..our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms" - Barack Obama May 2013
hack89
May 2013
#52
I don't believe I said anything about outlawing private ownership of guns, or repealing the 2A
AndyA
May 2013
#61
Agree, we need to focus on handguns,toting, etc. Although I see no reason not to focus on guns
Hoyt
May 2013
#17
Of course, you guys wouldn't covet them if harmless, non-intimidating, good for society, etc.
Hoyt
May 2013
#25
I covet mine because they're pieces of history, and one of them is worth more than your car. :)
Decoy of Fenris
May 2013
#62
Pieces of history -- used to kill hundreds of thousands. Not inspiring if you ask me.
Hoyt
May 2013
#63
Pieces of history -- used to save hundreds of millions. Also, to shape the modern world.
Decoy of Fenris
May 2013
#64