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
 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
23. Ah the old "penis" canard.
Sun Jul 22, 2012, 09:17 AM
Jul 2012
Fully automatic weapons should be banned.

They aren't. Virtually anyone can own one today. You simply have to buy a $200 tax stamp and have a background check and you can buy one. The only real problem is scarcity. The machine gun registry was closed in 1984. So only machine guns manufactured prior to this date are transferable. Consequently an M16 that would have cost you $1000 or less in 1984 costs $17,000 today.

I don't have a problem with the restrictions on fully automatic weapons, as I believe the people can fulfill the intent of the second amendment with semi-automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are suppression weapons, and there is no point in trying to suppress a technologically superior force as they will simply stand off and call in artillery or air support.

And I tend to agree with the Swiss policy on owning firearms: You only get a license to own a weapon if you can demonstrate an actual need.

See, I'm more for freedom. I don't have to define a "need" for something, as long as I'm a law-abiding citizen, if I want it and can pay for it, I can have it.

Besides, your "need" metric is a waste of time. Here in Alabama, you can't buy sex toys unless you have a medical "need". So when my wife and I went to the adult store to buy one, we filled out a check box on a little piece of paper that said we had a medical need for it.

What kind of "needs" are going to be valid for owning a firearm? Home defense? Concealed Carry? Hunting? Target shooting?

And "I want to have a penis substitute" is not an actual need.

This is offensive to millions of women who engage in shooting sports, including our US Olympic team.

There are simply too many weapons in the US. And gun-nut groups such as the NRA are only exacerbating the problem.

Did you know that in spite of the AR-15 being the most popular center-fire target rifle in America, only about 300 people are murdered every year with rifles of all kinds, let alone assault rifles?

Incidentally, you will notice that I have the Vietnam Campaign Ribbon in my posts. That's because I was there in 1968-69 (1/502, 173d Airborne Bde).

Thank you for your service.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

well said DrDan Jul 2012 #1
I've poked around looking for early second amendment debate information. brewens Jul 2012 #2
I think Justice Stevens' Dissent in Heller is an excellent discussion of 2nd Amendment. Hoyt Jul 2012 #4
Let's hope, we need to win congress in Nov. that will help nt flamingdem Jul 2012 #5
Lots exists from the founders. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #8
I meant that there isn't all that much on specifically the second amendment. brewens Jul 2012 #12
Start with Wikipedia Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #15
within the context of a well-regulated state militia magical thyme Jul 2012 #30
But they have several erroneous points. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #32
their point is that the 2nd amendment is very specifically written to address magical thyme Jul 2012 #34
and the dissenters evaluation of the decision is also an interesting read magical thyme Jul 2012 #31
And Congress HAS regulated civilian uses of weapons. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #33
the 2nd amendment is about maintaining state militias magical thyme Jul 2012 #35
That is true. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #37
Fuck the NRA. I'll donate to any politician who publicly states russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #3
You realize the NRA supports Democrats, right? Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #7
Oh my, well in that case iamthebandfanman Jul 2012 #10
Yes, I realize that. That doesn't make the NRA any less despicable. russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #16
Good to know you think supporting Democrats is despicable. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #19
Hey, are you Ron Paul ? russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #20
I don't get it. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #22
K&R. Well said. Overseas Jul 2012 #6
Many errors in his video Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #9
Then the Assault Weapons Ban wasn't strong enough. Chorophyll Jul 2012 #11
+1000 gtar100 Jul 2012 #13
So how would you have changed it? Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #14
And the problem with that is? Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #17
The weapons shown are neither an AK-47 nor an M-1 carbine. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #18
OK, I don't know about those two specific weapons. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #21
Ah the old "penis" canard. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #23
It's not a canard, it's a major reason why gun nuts collect guns. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #24
Crock of shit. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #25
A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #27
A question for you. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #28
Latest Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #39
I notice you didn't answer my question: Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #40
Because it's a stupid question, which does not deserve answering Fortinbras Armstrong Jul 2012 #42
My question is no more stupid than your statement that prompted it. Atypical Liberal Jul 2012 #43
You are wrong, it is NOT the job of the Police... MicaelS Jul 2012 #41
well said. DCBob Jul 2012 #38
My guess meanit Jul 2012 #26
Exactly right. K&R! Rhiannon12866 Jul 2012 #29
remember how after 9/11 conservatives said the Constitution isn't a suicide pact? yurbud Jul 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Bill Moyers: "NRA tu...»Reply #23