🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <380qel$g11@news.utdallas.edu>,
Mohit K Goyal <goyal@utdallas.edu> wrote:
>The semiauto ban wasn't all that important.  I don't see why someone
>*wouldn't* want them banned though.

Lets try again.  Semi-auto pistols have been around since at least 1905, which
is when John Browning introduced a precursor to the .45 that was our standard
military sidearm for about 75 years.  I can fire a double-action revolver
just as fast as a semi-auto pistol/rifle/shotgun - all require that the
trigger be pulled once for each shot fired.  Whether the gun in question has
a black plastic stock or not is irrelevant.  BTW the AR-15, which was banned,
is the standard rifle used by our military and is frequently used by civilians
in rifle competitions in the U.S.  If you ever go to a public range or
shooting match you'll discover that many of the guns in civilian hands are
semi-auto - as they have been for decades.  

>Correct.  The 2nd amendment clearly states that citizens have the right
>to bear arms for a state militia.

Wrong again.  The word "people" is repeatedly used in the Bill of Rights.
In the other 9 amendments it refers to all citizens.  Why does it mean
something different in the 2nd?  You might consider reading UT Law Professor
Stanford Levinson's "The Embarassing 2nd Amendment" which is available online
at the portal.com FTP site.  He is a Constitutional scholar who supports gun 
control but also asserts that the 2nd amendment provides for private ownership
of firearms.  There are a number of lawyers on the net who would be happy
to discuss case law on the subject with you if are you really interested.

>jspence@utdallas.edu wrote:

>I believe that much of the social change that has occured the the last
>150 years was not based on empirical studies, but on emotions and the
>plight of men, women, and children.

It's also a result of the urbanization of our society and the shift away
from self-reliance to dependence on government services for our daily needs.
I'm not sure what specific social change you're referring to, other than the
existence of the gun-control movement.  If you look at membership numbers
as a measure of public support, you might be interested to know that HCI
currently claims less than 500,000 members, and the current NRA membership
is somewhere over 3.6 million, including an increase of about 600,000+
in the past 12 months alone.  

>I wish to control hand guns and automatic weapons, not because they kill, but >because I see no need for the ordinary citizen to possess them.

Back to square one again.  Automatic weapons have been regulated since the
1930's.  You have to have a Class III license which requires that you be
investigated by the FBI and pay substantial fees to purchase and own fully
automatic guns.  The same factors that make handguns "useful" in crime also
make them useful for armed civilians who choose them as part of a self-defense
plan.

>I can't hunt with a hand gun nor a automatic weapon.
See my previous post about "hunting" not being mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
Lots of people hunt with a handgun.  In Michigan they have a "handgun-only"
deer season each year.  Many experienced hunters take up handgun or bow
because greater skill is required.

>For protection in the house, I'd prefer a shotgun loaded with rock salt. Only >rarely will the blast kill someone. The roar and the visable presents will >frighten most intruders. And salt in the open wound will leave memories.

First of all, you should *never* shoot to "frighten".  The only justifiable
reason to shoot at another person is to stop them from injuring, raping, or
killing you or a loved one.  If you ever find yourself in that situation you
will want the most effective weapon you can get your hands on.  If the threat
of deadly force isn't sufficient to stop your attacker (eg "stop or I'll
shoot"), why do you think a loud noise and a little rock salt will work?
If non-lethal force is sufficient to subdue violent attackers why do the 
police have guns?  

Karl
rehn@arlut.utexas.edu

Followups set to tx.guns...