Tuesday, September 09, 2008

A Discussion of the Last Poll

The previous 2nd Amendment poll stated:
"Should Automatic Firearms be Legal?"

Answers:
"Yes"
"No"
"Only with a Federal License"
"States should Decide"

Out of 11 votes, 9 chose "Yes", and 2 chose "States Should Decide".

Please comment your...comments, for the benefit of discussing and explaining your answer to the poll.

5 comments:

Stephen Boyd said...

Here's why I voted "yes" in the aforementioned poll. In the recent case in DC, the Majority Opinion DC v Heller, page 8, stated:
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. [b]Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications[/b], e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

I believe "all bearable arms" also pertains to automatic weapons. Bearing arms is a God given privilege and right and therefore should not be regulated by any state.

Son3 said...

I voted yes. I voted yes because, as a Christian, I must follow the laws of the land. The law is: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's the law, it's that simple.

Automatic firearms are just that..."arms", and are therefore subject to the same law as any other armament from sabres to shotguns.

"Well, you people think that everyone should own flamethrowers and nukes, then!"

I don't think any ordinary American citizen could be able to attain a nuke; Iran's been working on it for decades, and they still don't have one!

I didn't choose "States Should Decide" because that is not the law. The Second Amendment is a federal law, and as such, it is superior to state law. I don't make the rules, that's just the way it is.

My Mom chose "States Should Decide", as well as somebody else (I don't know who).

I can't help it if my Mom is...less Constitutionally savvy than some, but that's okay: she still makes some mean pear butter!

Mike said...

I actually was one of the folks that voted on the States Deciding Son3 :).

My reasoning being, if the states decide I'm more likely to be owning a PKM than if the Feds decided.

Now, I think that the Feds SHOULD allow them to be legal (like you said, they should follow their own laws), but I don't think that, with the political situation being what it is, that it will happen soon.

I speak with experiance ;), seeing as how I'm "A member of an elite paramilitary organization, Eagle Scout."


God Bless,
~Mike

Son3 said...

I know exactly what you mean, Mike.

The only way we'll ever get autos will probably be through state legislation. (You KNOW the Federalis won't let us have any fun.)

So, you were practically right.

I didn't know the Scouts were paramilitary. Dang, and I thought they didn't allow guns.

Stephen Boyd said...

Great points, Mike!

Of course the chances of it being legal period are none existent. Oh well, maybe we can work a compromise- states South of the Mason-Dixon can have automatic weapons, then do a study on the crime rate!

I'll take an AA-12 or a MP-5.

Websites That Make This One Possible

Ideations of a Jayhawker: Blog Policies

Comments
No vulgar, obscene, vile, or inappropriate language or insinuation may be used, and comments are subject to editing or deletion at my own discretion.

Please use proper spelling, following the rules of grammar of the English language.

The elimination of comments due to an objectionable account image may also be used at my discretion. Links given in comments that direct one to a website containing evil or unsightly content will also be deleted at my discretion.

Advocating or promoting specific acts of violence isn't allowed, but the vitriolic spewing of rants and ravings is encouraged.

Content

Content found in this blog is public domain, and it may be used freely; permission to recreate is automatically given, I only ask that I be informed when it is copied on another website; though this is not required, it would be considered a kind gesture.

Content found at any other website that was linked to from this page is beyond my control. I strive to put out as little objectionable content as possible here, but if you do find something that you feel is inappropriate, please contact me via comment, and I will duly edit it to a degree I deem appropriate.

Quotes you may find are all sic, including spelling, grammar, etc.

Following
Followers of this blog are more than welcome, but if you have a website that routinely displays content that you wouldn't allow a child to view or read, do not follow this blog unless you have a blogger warning previous to entering your website.
Failure to do so may result in being blocked from the followers list.

A follower may also be blocked if your account image is found to be objectionable.