On 15 Nov 2008, at 20:36, Roger Howard wrote:
[ snippage ]
I have absolutely no problem with responsible private ownership of
weapons, not only for hunting, but for fun and for self-defense.
However, if I were arming myself to protect my home, I cannot imagine
wanting to use an AK-74, or even an AR-15 knockoff. I see no real use
for these weapons *except* high intensity combat, or perhaps for fun.
Do focused gun bans stop violence? No, obviously not. Does it mean we
should not regulate weapons sales at all? That seems to be the
disagreement. I see the balance of risk vs. reward being against
private sales of assault weapons, just as I see it workng against
sales of cheap, low-quality, crime-oriented zip guns.
Personally, I don't like guns. However, I can understand the
philosophy behind the 2nd amendment, and I'm not even going to
particularly disagree with it.
But I also think that handling and use of guns should be regulated, at
least in the same way that handling and use of another dangerous yet
widely available item is regulated: Motor vehicles. In my opinion, if
there is a general permission to on weapons (such as provided by the
2nd amendment), then because they are dangerous, handling and using
them should require a license much in the same way as handling and
using a car or similar does. Different classes of weapons should of
course require different classes of license (handgun != rifle,
similarly as motorcycle != car). Handling a gun without a suitable
license, or handling it in an unsafe manner, could lead to the
restriction or revocation of a license. This, of course, includes
things like deliberately using a gun to commit a crime.
I also think that having a registry of gun ownership, much like the
current registry of car ownership, is a good idea; but there, I am
aware of the objection that since the purpose of the second amendment
is to arm the populace against a corrupt government, giving such a
corrupt government a handy list of exactly who owns which guns is
counter-productive.
Note that this above thinking of mine doesn't say anything about not
making available licenses for certain classes of weapons; say, assault
rifles, however you choose to define those. In order to fit in with
the second amendment, any licences would have to be made available in
a non-discriminatory fashion, and that includes cost (other than the
actual costs of testing the applicant's proficiency & safety in
handling the class of weapon in question) and any artificial
restrictions on which classes of weapons it is possible to get
licenses for.
Thoughts?
I wonder as well whether those who are against the assault rifle ban
are against any limit on what weapons law-abiding citizens should be
able to have, or simply want the bar set higher? i.e., how about
tanks? howitzers? machine guns mounted on the back of pickup trucks?
grenade / rocket launchers? And I am seriously asking, because by
strictly extrapolating the principle that the population must have the
right to have the means to defend itself against a corrupt government,
at least I arrive at the conclusion that the only restrictions on
private ownership of weapons should be the ones that the government
places on itself, i.e., things like arms treaties, etc (so, no
chemical or biological weapons, but helicopter gunships or similar
should in principle be OK).
Best wishes,
// Christian Brunschen
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
