| 9.3x57 |
| (.450 member) |
| 12/12/07 01:23 AM |
|
Re: Assault weapons
|
Quote:
I personally don't have much use for an assault weapon in civilian life, but have no problem with other people owning them as long as they are mentally fit to own a gun. There does seem to be a tendency amongst some wackos to gravitate towards such weapons though, so a bit of control isn't all that bad IMO. Such as having no prior criminal records related to violence etc when buying such guns. Or when buying any gun for that sake. Erik
Good points, Erik.
This statement above is quite close to what the courts have ruled in the USA. SOME regulation is allowed. Thus we have a Federal 4473 form, taxation of full auto, various state controls, etc. Gun laws vary TREMENDOUSLY in the USA, with a few states making France look tame {my long-gone home state of New Jersey for example} and others being quite liberal in their gun laws, such as my adopted state of Idaho.
Erik's summation of the sheeplike mentality of European citydwellers is SPOT ON the same here in the USA in highly developed areas where many people expect the "State" to protect them, not knowing or thinking about the reality that the state has no legal liability to do so and can't anyway.
Having said that, the march of shall-issue concealed carry laws has been very steady for many years throughout the USA and many states have instituted liberal carry laws. This is a factor of both the reality that the courts are wary of infringing on the 2nd Amendment right AND the fact that many people who do not hunt and have no use for long arms DO want a pistol for self protection.
As stated before, the foundation of gun ownership in the USA is not "duck hunting". Some years ago I read a paper the thesis of which was that in the 20th Century and including the World Wars, more people were killed by THEIR OWN governments than by ENEMY governments. Citing pogroms in China, Russia/Soviet Union, German killings of their own Jewish and other citizens, Eastern European enforcement of imposed Nazi laws, African state-sponsored genocides, etc, etc, it was quite revealing. Much hinges on the definitions, to be sure, but the basic assertion is a powerful one. Yes, a man's own government is the most likely political threat to his own life.
And our Founding Fathers were cognizant of that fact and never tried to cover it up. Thus not just the 2nd Amendment, but the whole Bill of Rights a protection few other countries have.
In my opinion this is the most essential ingredient to the successful protection of gun rights. And in the absense or erosion of foundational legal principles protecting individual rights, the people of Australia, Norway, or any other country, USA included, will struggle to protect their single-issue gun rights.
Remain vigilant and VOTE.
No "right" is more precious.