Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to kingcuke's blog Subscribe


Special Features


The debate hasn't changed in 2,000 years:
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Every time Second Amendment issues arise two phrases are parroted, common sense gun laws & assault rifle.

The trouble with "assault rifle" is that it is invariably used incorrectly, as are the terms machine gun & automatic.
While fully automatic weapons are legal to own they are rare, expensive, and highly regulated both at the state & federal level.
When one hears news stories about AKs or ARs, machine guns or assault rifles the firearms themselves are invariably semi-automatic firearms which fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled as opposed to an automatic or "machine" gun which fires as long as the trigger is pulled, until the magazine is emptied.

When technical rules are applied using inaccurate terms what may appear common sense banning of dangerous military weapons end up banning all self-loading (semi-automatic) firearms which includes everything from pistols to shotguns, .22s to 10 gauge.

Any registration scheme becomes a defacto confiscation list when through an interpretation of a regulation formerly legal firearms are reclassified as illegal. This happened in Canada with several styles of .22 caliber rifles.

Through future administrative reclassification any firearm could be made illegal.

The major anti-gun groups if one delves deeply enough into their policies want to ban all civilian ownership of firearms.
While the focus is always on "assault" rifles (which are rarely used in criminal activity) and magazine capacity the reality is any firearm whether single shot, revolver, or break action shot gun is equally deadly on the first shot and while it seems logical to many that a 30 round magazine is more "dangerous" than a 10 round magazine the reality is it's a difference without a distinction.
Reloading a firearm with practice can be very quick & in an unarmed crowd lacking heroes like Mr. Chris Mintz or a concealed carry licensee stopping anyone with any kind of a firearm is unlikely until met with equal or greater force.

Equally one must consider the subtle but significant change to our form of government when only it or it's agents may posses firearms, which of course in the US means the connected and the rich too.

We do not have a gun problem in the US we have a sociological problem of violence, gangs, poverty, lack of opportunity, and low social mobility.

Are there people who shouldn't be allowed to own firearms?
Absolutely, but who has the right to allow what rights and liberties we have beyond the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

"But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. ...
For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
Jeff Snyder

It can be legitimately argued that it is not a violation of the 14th Amendment due to the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause.

"Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment acts to recognize all persons as citizens who do not owe allegiance to some other government when naturalized or born."

This is arguably an issue since persons who only hold documentation from a foreign sovereign nation owe allegiance to the issuing nation, and since they are not following the immigration laws of the US are not applying or seeking citizenship.

"Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."

"Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said "Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power." Thus, the statute can be read as "All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."

Interpretations of the Constitution and Amendments do evolve over time to include such things as equality for sexual preferences.
It would seem if one is waving a foreign flag while demanding legal recourse are undermining their own case based on the jurisdiction clause.
Just because a loophole or lack of judicial review allow past actions such as race, gender, or sexual orientation discrimination to exist does not necessarily make the actions legal.

Given the relative difficulty of travel in the era of the Constitution the assumption was made that primarily only those who wished to be Americans would want American citizenship, not the economic immigrants who want only the advantages without the responsibility of allegiance.


Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2015 World Readable