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
Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: Bill Moyers: "NRA turned 2nd amendment into a cruel and deadly hoax" [View all]Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)23. Ah the old "penis" canard.
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.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Bill Moyers: "NRA turned 2nd amendment into a cruel and deadly hoax" [View all]
flamingdem
Jul 2012
OP
I think Justice Stevens' Dissent in Heller is an excellent discussion of 2nd Amendment.
Hoyt
Jul 2012
#4
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
A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Fortinbras Armstrong
Jul 2012
#27