I am only going to scratch the surface here, this issue is too big for my tired old brain today.
Sometime late last night Hubby and I got into it about guns. CL was there too, poor dude. Hubby claimed that he would vote R so fast if D even came close to threatening his right to buy grenade launchers. Don't judge too quickly. . . yes, that is a very scary thing to say, but I believe his point is that if you start with grenade launchers, then hunting rifles and shotguns will be next. My response is always, "if you want your guns, just register them." He thinks that the reason that the government wants to register guns is so they can come in and take them. My response, "oh yeah, that is why the government forces us to register our vehicles, so eventually they can come and take them away from us. Eye roll and expletive." If they really want the Sentra, they can have the Sentra. Ha! You can pry my Sentra out of my cold dead hands. My President is Nissan Motor Corporation. Oh, I need to stop.
Here is my food for thought this morning. Where are you Rosie? Why is it that during the fight over Alito and Roberts, NARAL is the only organization pitching a fit? Where are the anti-gun nuts? Did you give up and let Seleck win? The reason we haven't heard anything from the NRA is because they are sitting back and enjoying the ride.
CL had a great point, well several, but this one impressed me immensely. The second amendment is the only amendment that addresses technology and it is the only amendment that congress has not touched. We don't need to protect our right to form a militia to protect ourselves since we now have a military. How on earth could our forefathers known that they would be protecting a citizen's right to own a grenade launcher?
My final point to Hubby was, fine vote R and protect your precious guns, but my vote cancels yours and will every time so WE are one big ZERO on the gun issue. I am starting to save my pennies to buy a gun safe.
9 comments:
Oh goodness, hubby is starting to sound like my Papa who VOTES R because of this very issue. For some reason he thinks that the D's are threatening his right to own a gun. Or maybe he thinks R's are more scrupulous to protect that right - I'm not sure which one.
My point is always this to my Papa - Congress hasn't touched the 2nd Amendment because it's a damned impossibility to do so. Constitutional rights are not easy to affect, and shouldn't be. There MUST be a COMPELLING state interest in affecting that right. And that compelling state interest has to be narrowly tailored to affect that purpose. This is all legal mumbo-jumbo but in reality it means that even the smallest restriction would be implemented ONLY IF they'd change the fricken hundreds of years of law in order to take away your right to own a shotgun and rifle.
The hand grenade launcher argument is a cop-out for a real argument. We have to make a line in the sand about where our laws stop ALL THE TIME. Grenade launchers are a far-cry from shotguns and rifles. They should both be on the opposite side of that line in the sand - one side protecting us from crazies who think they should own a grenade launcher made solely to kill people and the other side protecting the right to own a shotgun or rifle.
Voting R doesn't mean further protections for our rights. Rather, it means we can always be worried about what fashionable fight is next for the Christian Right. And what constitutional protections are next in line for attack though they've been in effect for years and years. Alito - case in point. Who knows when that next fight will be against our right to own a handgun and shotgun. Afterall, Thou Shalt Not Kill.
Damn bdoc. I should have called you from Millers last night to fight with Hubby.
You did call me. It just was about the selection between Miller High Life and Champagne. Although now that I think about it - it was actually about Miller High Life, the CHAMPAGNE of beers. a HA!!!
A little confusion here. Were granade launchers not included in the ban on automatic weapons, and if not are they not considered a weapon of mass people distruction. Like bdoc says, they should be on the other side of the line in the sand.
Good question - Thank god for google.
Q: What is the status of the federal assault weapons ban?
A: The federal law banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, known as the federal assault weapons ban, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.
However, the assault weapons ban will expire ("sunset") in September 2004 unless Congress and President George W. Bush renew it. That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons could begin flooding our streets again, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals.
Congress did let it expire. If you google grenade launchers you can buy them from just about every nation on the planet.
I personally think the line in the sand should be no semi-automatic weapons AT ALL and every other gun should be registered. Oh and you have to pass an IQ and a drug test before you can buy bullets. But that is just me.
Sweet, I am gonna get a granade launcher. Imagine the fireworks for 4th of July. We are free.
What a crock of shit. I wonder if anybody bothered to take note to see if the ban did any good for the 10 or so years it was in existance.
I remember reading about the drop points where people were allowed to get rid of the banned arms. People were turning in live mortars and small bombs from WWII and odd places. The officers were glad they were coming off the streets but were terrified to have to handle them from there.
It will all come down to more control someday but for now we get to live with some more death. Oooh death, indirect population control. Limit the masses and poof limit the need for extra food, gas, energy, clean water, and whatever else needed to support a growing population. It might even help to resolve some other issues...
Alright ladies, although the estrogen found on this blogsite is blinding me, I must admit that you have some fine arguments. The point that I was trying to make last night is that no person will ever get elected as president if they even mention the word gun control. I personally could not nor would not would not vote for that person and would rally the troops against them.
well our guv had a really good quote i read a long time ago - i googled "brian schweitzer, gun control, quote" and all's I can find is: "you control your gun, I'll control mine." but he made a good point saying something to the effect of: in montana, with the wide open spaces and the hunting tradition of our state, we see gun rights differently than you do when you are a state of people, stacked one on top of another in stressful conditions." I think the difference of gun perceptions is something that is not talked about enough. It's sort of like the abortion debate, people come at it with such different lenses that we don't talk about why it is we see the issues differently.
all i want for christmas is a grenade launcher, an ak-47 and uu-uu-zi. i saw mama kissing charlton heston.
but you all had some really good points that i had not thought about, too. it's frustrating that the gun lobby makes this such a black and white issue, because it's not. France adopted a new cosntitution in 1958, and it has been amended 17 times already. I don't know why we hold onto this piece of paper so fervently for gun rights, but gay marriage??? AMEND AMEND AMEND!!!!
aj
AJ - you are so right, protect our guns, but for christ sakes keep those gays from marrying. It only makes sense. . .
Post a Comment