Wednesday, April 15, 2009

The assault on Assault Weapons.

I've been thinking over the 60 Minutes segment on the gun shows and the ease with people can get any weapons with the focus being on assult weapons. Given this was a 60 Minutes, it comes as no surprise their bias against these weapons and those that desire to own and have access to them. How brazen those biases were a bit of a surprise, and so many myths and downright lies in the segment was just down right disgusting. If you're going to a smear job, at least get some facts rights and tell some truth instead of a complete fantasy of your bias. Allow me to ellaberate.

First of all, they used the recent shootings mainly in Oakland, Philidelphia (so much for brotherly love), and the residence facility. The only problem is other than Oakland and that was after the initial barrage, none of them use an assult rifle which what they mainly were critequting. They were using Virgina because of the ease of the state laws there for gun show for anyone without ID to get a weapon while doing a minmal background check (they're not required in Virginia at all). Well, before you get on the wagon and start shouting terrorist and right wing extreamist at me, I thought the Virginia 's law was completely insane. It's only a matter of public safety, as we have seen, that we find out if the person getting such a device isn't going to have malevelent intentions. After all, do we want Bin Laden to waltz right in and do the chain gun cha cha? Ok, Islamics don't dance, but you get the point. Everyone isn't entitled to a gun just as I can't go out and shout fire in a crowded theater. So first lets get into the intention of the founding fathers and why this admendment is so polarizing.

When the founding father were trying to get the states to radify the Constitution, many states were concerned with getting overridden by the larger states or should we centralized our states with a federal government, it may become too big and intridge on the rights of the individuals. One of the compromises they added was the second admendment to give the rights to individuals so they can maintain a miltia against an over reaching governement. Could they foreseen the advances today? No, of course not. However, their reasoning is still valid. They believed the individual is trusted more then the government to protect their own interests and thus should have the means to be able to maintain against tryanny. As well as, they saw how the militias were a major pain in the butt to the British during the Revolutionary war. Had it not been for these militias, the Brits would had been able to occupy the countrysides that fed the colonist and starve them out which was their war plan. When the militas hammered them too badly in the rural areas, they settled in holding the main ports and cities and thought they could wear out the fight by cutting off the manufactoring and supplying of war materials to the rebels. What they didn't count on to maintain those militas: Ben Franklin. Ben was so good as embassador to France, they literally supplied the Colonist with the war materials needed to maintain the gurrela warfare that eventually led to the forming of our own army and eventually the Cornwell Wallace defeat. It was with this mindset the 2nd Amendement was written.

Now the first problem with the gun banner's argument as stated by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is that assult weapons are the weapons of choice by drug cartels, criminals, crazy people. Well, first of all, she doesn't give a definition of an assult weapon. Her presence on 60 Minutes was an assult to me, does that make the TV an assult weapon? The definition as given by the NRA is a weapon that's designed and manufactured to fire continuously without paused when the trigger is held. The example they gave doesn't fit that. The weapon of choice by most of what she quoted are hand guns because of their concealment ability. Try hiding an assult rifle. Until these crimes were committed, in fact, an assult rifle hadn't been used in a crime since 1986 when a nut job shot up a school yard with an AK-47. Now, if you're going to define semi-automatic, then the statement rings true, but since there's no definition given, there's no way to tell what they're actually argument for unless it's a complete gun ban. The very thing they they're saying they not for while many are buying guns now at record numbers because they fear BO is coming after them and given his record and these arguments, they're have every right because he is. The question is how they'll make it fly with the American people. The first thing a totaltarian government goes for first is the guns.

No comments: