appst89 wrote:I just wonder if the people who are so willing to voluntarily give up the liberties they don't particularyl like are going to be so accommodating when the next one to be taken is one they hold dear?
That is one reason I would not care to end all gun sales. We do have a 2nd amendment, and I do want to respect those rights as much as possible. It is not as important to me as others, and I realize that. But I do think there is some reason that it is Amendment Number 2 to the freedoms mentioned in Amendment Number 1. I might not like what you have to say, nor you like what I have to say, but at the end of the day there is nothing I can say that will directly kill you. If you can think of some phrase so shocking, so vile, that a person that hears those words uttered will drop dead then tell me (of course in writing, don't say it to me.) A bullet passing through my brain or other vital organs, odds-are is going to do me in.
But even with speech we have limits. One has to get permits. One can be cordoned off in a "free-speech" zone, which is very 1984-ish in its very description. I don't like that stuff either. The problem with the pro-"any gun that I desire should be allowed" folks is just that. We are seeing a slow slippage of rights away from us as we turn more into a corporatist-state. Though I am sure there are some folks that really do take the Bill of rights to hart (The ACLU is pretty good here.) I don't see many in the pro-gun side of the aisle getting worked up about other issues such as Internet privacy, "free-speech" zones. etc. I think the pro-gun lobby is barking up the wrong tree in worrying about losing rights.
I'll try and express my opinion on this as clear as I can, without taking 30 minutes to type it out.. Yes, I do think we are seeing an erosion of basic rights. That is across the board, and coming from many different directions. Some from the gov't and some from the corporate world. Some corporations do some big work with SLAP lawsuits to shut up dissent. However, the fear that some have that the gov't is going to come at us with guns-ablazing is a bit on the paranoid side. One, the gov't has so much fire power even a large clip on a gun will not stop the gov't. So that is a moot argument. Secondly, as long we keep enough decent people in the military that are not just "yes" men we don't have that to worry about, and I don't live in fear of a military coup. That is one reason we should all be supporting Bradley Manning. If we have enough of these type soldiers I don't think we would have to worry about the gov't turning on us, b/c there would be enough soldiers to just say no, that is wrong, I am not going after a fellow citizen. We should also be very concerned about Gitmo. We also have a firm tradition that the top Defense people are civilians, or at least retired military. We also have some laws and legal traditions (Posse Comitatus) that have mostly held up in modern times. Like any law, there are some vague words in that Act that I would prefer not be in the law and laws connected to it. But overall it is a nice check and balance to the military. Finally, and the most important point as it relates to the 2nd amendment, why worry about the gov't when we are killing each other in such large numbers.
Of course all of this is coming from the angle for those that feel the 2nd Amendment is there to keep the gov't in check from invading homes and such. For those that want a gun to "protect" themselves from a burglar then once again I ask, why would you need a 30-round clip for that or to go hunting? I don't remember stating anything that would take away the right to have a gun that could stop a deer or a home intruder, assuming the owner has some reasonable level of mental stability.
This is my very generic signature added to each post.