Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (53625)	8/31/1999 4:18:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I appreciate your "devil's advocate" stance - it assists me in testing my arguments for internal consistency. >You say, <<<To be useful to defend self and home, a gun NEEDS a repeat-fire capability. Obviously in the wrong hands this is a heck of a liability. >>> Is that something there are stats to demonstrate? I mean, that belt-fed 50 caliber machine guns are necessary to defend self and home? How often are they used this way, do you know?< Uhm, apples and oranges, E. I'm arguing that I have the right to own the belt-fed machine gun. I am not advancing the argument that it is a useful home-defense device - unless, of course, burglars start using Hueys. <grin> I don't want to use practicality or necessity to be the gauge of right-of-ownership. That places the burden of proof on the gun owner - and imo that is illiberal. (** IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS LAST> *) I'd like to see it the other way around ... I'd like to see the State of California show some hard stats that their PREVIOUS invasive gun laws have reversed crime. "show us that you are infringing our liberty to good sound gains. Otherwise, give it back, 'kay?" I doubt they'd be able to do it. But for some reason the arbiters in this land - media, columnists, telereporters ... campaigning elected officials ... have shifted the blame onto the gun. And they're making it STICK. Useta be that a shotgun or a levergun propped up by the front door, rural or suburban, was a fixture. Now it's cause to gasp. Why? For home defense I think few things could beat a semi-auto shotgun (now officially an "assault weapon" in CA!!). Close behind it would be an autoloading rifle (say an AR-15, the current Assault Weapon poster child). Bringing up the rear (and my personal choice for convenience) is the semi-auto pistol. I cotton to the 45 Auto Government Model. As for what's right in the details ... that is the hinge here. The devil is in the details here. They're liooking for ways to marginalize the second Amendment without repealing it outright. Are we gonna let'm? I hope not ... but I see it coming. And there is no clear line, no obvious cause, to invite a revolution or civil revolt that won't be splashed on TV as "militia" "fringe group" "extremists". The NRA exists to serve the interests of gun owners. Therefore it is in the interest of the NRA to maintain and defend its constituency. There is no morally consistent way that the NRA can support "sane, reasonable" gun control unless it comes bundled with express language from our legislators and judges that 1) civil gun ownership will be respected and maintained and 2) the continuity of that ownership will be respected and maintained. If I own a gun - be it a .22 single shot, be it a belt-fed 50 - i should be able to sell it on the (well-regulated) open market or bequeath it to my beneficiaries without some punitive tax scheme being imposed. So I toss out this challenge - think on it some, Folks. Is there any way to badmouth the NRA without it being a concealed way to badmouth the basic concept of private firearm ownership? So I ask again, and plainly. **Where is the line where the average voter will look at all this gun restriction and say OK, Enough?