ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

Automatic Assault Weapon. Is it a gun at all? Definitely not “arms”. Weapon of Mass Destruction? 2nd amendment.

Updated on March 12, 2013

This historic Wooden Indian could be seen outside of Tobacco and Gun Shops.

In this guy's time honest men wore their guns outside their pants for the world to see.
In this guy's time honest men wore their guns outside their pants for the world to see. | Source

Hate them, Love them, but understand them.

Been doing some thinking, I know that is dangerous. But hear me out. I was in the NRA since I could join, I think around 6 years old. Maybe that was just a local “chapter” thing back in the sixties. But I went to NRA “school” for quite some time. I do not know what type of merit badge it may have been but I studied gun safety and operation in the Boy Scouts. My father taught me and instructed me the proper handling of guns and made me clean and assemble guns in the basement. I suppose I am currently qualified with a 38, 9mm and 22. That would be through the San Diego Public Safety Academy.

We do not have the same medicine as 1790, why would be have the same law?

I do not own a gun and my older children did not even have toy guns. Being blessed with better than normal eyesight there is some expert in my marksmanship, although I have not fired a gun since qualifications. The definition of a gun when our country was founded, with few exceptions, would be a single load and fire gun. The definition of a gun in the sixties had increased to multi-bullet cartridges. The line between Rifle and pistol were already blurring with guns such as a pistol gripped sawed off shotgun. A fifty caliber pistol is hardly a hand gun and it takes two hands. Gatling and Tommy guns had arrived.

Assault Weapons should be categorized as weapons of mass destruction

But this machine that automatically pulls a trigger mechanism for you is not a gun in my mind. It is a mechanized flesh disruptor. If a man or women does not pull the trigger for each shot fired that is not a gun. If a man or woman does not have to aim in order to place a kill shot, that is not a gun. Random placing of deadly metal in the air is not a gun. What does the word mass in WMD mean? Weapons of Mass Destruction. Does it mean 10 people or how about the number 26 people?

Right to bear arms does not entitle us to WMD's

Now I am all for a right to bear arms. Wait a second that is what the US Constitution says? Wow! It says specifically “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.” In fact the notion of being allowed to bear arms goes back much further than the Roman eras. Our Supreme Court just laid out a proper argument, telling us that this notion extends to traditional reasons for a gun like protection inside your home. The word Arms to my understanding refers to placing weapons with people for their protection. Note the constitution does not say “being necessary for the offensive attack of a free state”.

Weapons are strictly restricted in Mexico. So America the Beautiful smuggles weapons there by the boat load.

We arte out of step with our gun right laws.
We arte out of step with our gun right laws. | Source

You make the call!

If the NRA is to reach back in time to our Constitution then they should also reach back in time to a time when automatic weapons were not in existence. I could not now possibly send my son to NRA school to learn firearms safety. How could I? If they endorse weapons of mass destruction in the hands of 18 year olds, I cannot in good conscience participate in such horror.

Someone convince me that any type of assault or automatic weapon should be owned by twenty year olds.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Not on your own bro. On your own spells "whacko" in a group means moderated and goal oriented. Except for wako and Ruby ridge and even they cost not civilians deaths except by the government. We do not have militias hurting folks or causing injury to occur. If the drug cartels

    • MrBecher profile image

      MrBecher 4 years ago from CNY

      Fire was admittedly a bit of a stretch. But defense against the government, whether part of an organized state militia, or on your own, still stands. There are people all over the country, though mostly around the Mexican border, who form neighborhood militias, even though it's not state mandate. I certainly don't believe George Washington imagined people holding off the government shacked up in their homes, but I'm sure he did imagine people forming cohesive militias to fight the tyranny of the government (assuming it got to that point) just as he and the Patriots had.

      Edit: My apologies, I know this is not the place for debate. Sometimes I get carried away. Anyways, great article!

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Theresa your right, about our need. We have come to a point (and the fiscal cliff Again proves it) where our representatives are too extreme while in fact the populace is not.

      We need to do this here and now, why not?

      Is there extremism in logic? No.

    • phdast7 profile image

      Theresa Ast 4 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

      Eric - I appreciate your balanced and thoughtful responses to the various objections and concerns which have been expressed. As a nation, we have largely forgotten, or abdicated, the responsibility to carefully debate and attempt to resolve issues that are of grave concern to our national strength and peace. In very few public venues do we see examples of people debating based on reasoning as opposed to emotionalism.

      As a people we are in desperate need for a return to discussions based on moderation, logic, balance, and which examine "all facets" of a particular issue or situation. The terse sound bites of the traditional media and the angry and truncated bits of verbiage in most blogs and forums do not advance understanding or provide solutions for our very real problems. Thank you for modeling what we should all be doing. You and Mr. Happy make a good and interesting team. :)

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Thank you MrBecher for coming by and commenting, and for such a well stated argument. We have these balancing tests. If fire served no useful purpose we might ban it. Where I live it is illegal outside of appropriate places. It is illegal to burn your house down on purpose. It is illegal to start wildfires and creating a flame in certain places is illegal.

      I like your comment on the original reason. But not really that accurate. It was originally about states rights versus a national government. Extended to individuals by SCOTUS fiat that makes some sense. The kind of funny notion that one man could hold off a government with a firearm in his house is not original reality. The purpose was so states could form militias to defend the state. Guess what we not have standing state militias so the logic is totally gone.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Yes Mr. Happy I am sure we need stronger laws on driving. But at least driving serves a viable purpose, like MrBechers' point on fire.

      And we shall happily celebrate the renewal of life that the season brings.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Niteriter, thank you for your strong words of encouragement. The matter must be kept on the forefront. I think we will make progress.

    • Niteriter profile image

      Niteriter 4 years ago from Canada

      I applaud you for writing this Hub, Eric. It takes courage to come out against guns in your society; I hope you are taking pride in the courage you have shown in this instance.

      Guns are produced for the singular purpose of destruction. Maybe the time is not far off when average people will overcome the mindset created by the arms manufacturing industry and find a way to focus on humanity's growth rather than its destruction.

      Pubic statements like this are a step in a more positive direction. Best wishes.

    • Mr. Happy profile image

      Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

      I so agree with You on that. Especially in North America, the driving examinations are a complete joke and then, we have lots of accidents, people injured, dead, high costs on hospitals, insurance ... this is a whole entire subject on which I have many opinions ... I drive a lot. I see so much nonsense ... beyond belief sometimes.

      Alrighty, You have yourself a good week and if I do not pass by again: Enjoy the coming Celebrations and all the best in 2013! : )

    • MrBecher profile image

      MrBecher 4 years ago from CNY

      Two things I'd like to point out - the right to bear arms was not meant for hunting. It was meant to discourage the government from being tyrannical. Thus, if the government has machine guns, and the purpose is to counter-balance the citizen vs the government, logically, citizens should be able to, as well.

      Second, I guarantee you someone could whip out a samurai sword and massacre a classroom of small children with relative ease. Why not outlaw samurai swords? Or if I dare to be outrageous (which I do), why not outlaw fire? What's worse than a building of burning people?

      Before the rebut, I'd like to point out that the call to ban (automatic) firearms is absolute - as in no one can possess an automatic weapon. If fires can be equally dangerous, why not ban fires absolutely? My point is that if somebody wants to kill, they can. How is not a problem. And making it less convenient for someone to kill people is not going to stop them from killing.

      In any case, I see how you drew your chain of thinking, and though I disagree, I think it's one of the better arguments I've seen for the call to ban firearms. Kudos!

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Mr. Happy, I backed it up a little and found a list of petitions: http://www.signon.org In the meantime I ran an errand in my car, remembered that motor vehicle accidents are still above shooting deaths. Thinking of some of the restrictions folks want on guns, we should have the same for cars.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Mr. Happy, I would be lying if I said they were not very fun to shoot. And it is cool when Steve and Dano use them in Hawaii. But I will forgo that in exchange for no more "smell of Napalm" at 930 in the morning. If you have never been around one of the weapons, you need ear plugs and nose plugs the smell is horrendous. Hear tell the smell alone carries the smell of death.

      Yes we need to keep the dialogue open. Our president is asking for input. We will do better.

    • Mr. Happy profile image

      Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

      Here's the petition You asked about, Mr. Eric Dierker: http://signon.org/sign/gun-control-now-1

      All the best!

    • Mr. Happy profile image

      Mr. Happy 4 years ago from Toronto, Canada

      Sounds like You are talking about Napalm in the above comment, Mr. Eric Dierker.

      Many people might be surprised to know that even here in Canada, I can own an AR 15. I do not think it is necessary for one to own such a weapon but to be perfectly honest, if people would be responsible with their weapons, we would not be having these discussion. Many people are simply not responsible (for many reasons) though ...

      The laws are just very lax in the United States about gun control. Gun Shows are a primary example of irresponsible gun sales and gun purchases. Yet, nothing has changed for so long because the Military Industrial Complex makes incredible amounts of profit from selling armament and their lobbyists who swarm politicians like vultures have been rather relentless.

      Also, the point made lately about the need to have access to mental health care as easy as access to guns is also a great point, in my opinion.

      Indeed, the time for this discussion is Now. Thank You for opening-up the channel on this topic.

      All the best!

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Jaye, I do not know just where those petitions are. Are they on the web? If they are we need to examine them here. Our children's lives depend on it.

      Thanks for commenting a voting. I wonder if we will have a divide between the north and south on these issues.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Theresa, you making time during the Holidays is a gift complete. Thank you. Here is an interesting factoid about automatics: You basically need to be a professional expert to hold an automatic steady enough to hit an intended human target more than once during a burst. When I was young during rock, snowball or pine cone fights we outlawed gravel or cinder splatter throws. It just is not right to throw up a hand full of gravel and by luck hit the other guy.

    • JayeWisdom profile image

      Jaye Denman 4 years ago from Deep South, USA

      Eric....Thank you for an excellent article presented with logic, facts and (obviously) concern by a caring person. I agree with you and, judging from the hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions to the White House asking for gun control laws following the horrendous Newtown massacre, so do many other Americans.

      Voted Up+++

      Jaye

    • phdast7 profile image

      Theresa Ast 4 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

      An essential distinction. Thank you for making a cogent argument that both concedes the citizen's right to have a gun for protection, but denies the citizen's the right to own a weapon that can and does create mass destruction, multiple deaths. Only the military on a battle field should possess such weapons.

      I say all this as someone who has a 9 mm for personal protection in my home and was raised by a father who was a fire arms expert in the Air Force and taught all of his children gun safety from th age of 12 on.

      There is a middle position between all the extremists on either side -- all guns or no guns. The intelligent and rationale position means we have a right as the constitution says to a single shot gun or rifle to defend ourselves and our families . . . and congress should move to outlaw automatic and semiautomatic weapons immediately with extremely stiff penalties for those who would break our gun laws. Sharing.

    • Ericdierker profile image
      Author

      Eric Dierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

      Funny thing that hunting. I went hunting for years and never fired a gun at an animal. I was a tracker and loved it. Never did meet a hunter that used an automatic.

      I am on the line with semi-automatic. A Colt revolver is such.

      Thanks much for reading a sharing, a meaningful debate here could actually influence people

    • Peggy W profile image

      Peggy Woods 4 years ago from Houston, Texas

      No argument from me on this point. I think your arguments are valid. I think that semi-automatic and automatic weapons as well as clips that hold loads of bullets have no place anywhere with the possible exception of war. Weapons of mass destruction is a good way to describe these weapons. No one needs them for deer hunting or home protection. Up and useful votes. Sharing!