you_can_pry_my_dick_out_of_your_cold stork daddy dead hands...... Okay so today there's good news and bad news. The good news is that the semi-automatic assault rifle ban expires at midnight....the bad news is that arnold just outlawed necrophilia in california. What's the fun of hunting someone down with a M-16 if you don't get to have sex with the corpse? Seriously though, allowing guns which can carry up to 60 rounds in their magazine is totally what the 2nd Amendment intended when it said arms. It also meant that you have a right to buy guns at a gunshow with relative ease. Because while driving is only a privilege, owning guns is a right! Why stop at semi-automatic though? You never know when you might have to shoot a 1000 deer. I bet you'd hit even more deer with a nuclear warhead. Oh well might as well let the crazies have their guns...one of them gunning me down will save me the trouble of shooting myself. Seriously though, I suppose the argument is one of utility to society versus the risks imposed. After all, in a rights based society, our essential rights must not be impinged upon unless they themselves impinge upon someone elses more essential rights. I think social policy alone is a stronger argument than the tortured interpretation of the constitution which always seems to leave out the part about arms being used in the upkeep of a well-armed militia. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is no conjunction after the qualifying phrase set apart by commas, so we must assume that the right to bear arms is somehow a part of a well regulated militia, which is what the phrase shall not be infringed relates back to. The amendments seem purposefully vague so as to allow interpretation by the people, the legislature, and the courts. So social policy becomes a large part of that argument. Arguments about the right to hunt have little to do with the 2nd Amendment, and more to do with social policy. So unless you're part of the militia, which would imply training and drilling and organizing, you're making a social policy argument which weighs the various principles of our chosen form of society against one another. I would argue that guns when needlessly unregulated, impinge on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, more than they protect it. As a protection against the government, I would wonder how effective the gun owners of this country would be. It would seem that no government in history has ever been able to supress for too long the desires of the people it ruled, and the liberties of the constitution have become so embedded in the character of our citizens, that I go against established psychological studies about obedience to authority and question whether the US Army's soldiers would even accept orders that limited the freedom of their fellow citizens in a way that had negative implications for all of society. It would seem obeying authority in our country means we obey the principles of liberty outlined in the constitution. I do not see a need to completely strip the right to bear arms. However, let's keep that militia well regulated. I mean at least when the guns banned by clinton were grandfathered, they became rare and expensive so you knew only serious criminals could get their hands on them. I feel that it should be more difficult to get a gun than a driver's license, to prevent needless violence. Of course there will still be a black market, but stricter regulations should also be aimed at preventing that. As it is, it is too easy for criminals and those not meeting what should be a requisite measure of skill or responsibility to get guns. The shift should be from right to privilege. A friend of mine suggested that what's needed is to lock up the criminals, that is enforce existing laws, and let the law abiding citizens have their guns. The problem is, there are always new criminals, and as long as guns are on the market, the enforcement can only come after the damage. Just because a fringe element of society is willing to accept that risk, doesn't mean the rest of society should have to accept the risk of these tools primarily used to destroy things. Then jokingly he said we should just kill the criminals before they commit the crimes. That's a novel political theory...fascist libertarianism. Either way I'm going to the gun show this weekend to see what all the fuss is about. I'm even going to go to the shooting range and have some target practice. I'll tell them I used to be an elite sniper, but ever since I accidently shot the pregnant wife and child of one of my targets, I've been drinking recklessly and unable to aim. But now I'm back in training in preparation to go after Osama Bin Laden. 040913 ... Death of a Rose :) 040914 what's it to you? who go blather from