PPk/S guy,
I must completely disagree with you on that. But I may also be misunderstanding your point. Many people right now have no need for a fully automatic weapon. But half the purposes behind weapons is that of preparation. I am a law student in Las Vegas and when we discuss the 2nd amendment and gun rights I really turn heads when I am asked why I need a hand gun and I reply to kill people. That being said I am going off the assumption that most of the time, guns, by design are for killing people.
Handguns were designed, if I am not mistaken, for the ability to be used and held. And automatic weapons were designed to fire as many bullets as rapidly as possible. And a fully auto glock pistol was designed to do both because situations exists where you want to fire as many bullets as possible and to carried in a nice little package.
Now I am a firm believer of the 2nd amendment and the people's need to have weapons, so I therefore believe it is OK to REASONABLY legislate the possession of these weapons. I am OK with the government having me get a class III lisence if I want the use of Fully autos, and silenced, or shortened shotguns ect. Then again the reason I don't mind is that on the whole I would never use a firearm that way. Tactiacally speaking the majority of the time double tabs, and aiming and firing are the best in shoot to kill situations.
Now is there a need for someone in the public sector to use a weapon that's intent is obviously one that has a strong potential danger to the public ( most people carrying this weapon would be using it for murder, instead one of the many Lawful killings of a human being). Well, one situation I can see is that of a man on PCP and coming at you with a weapon. Training dictates that you will be shooting for their center of mass, but there have been CLIPS unloaded into people drugged up and they still manage to be able to attack for a while. So yes I do see a need in being able to put 17 rounds into a person within 2-3 seconds as he advances on me.
For me, I have pet peeve of people associating killing = bad, instead of murder= bad. The translation of Thou shalt not kill, in the KJV is better understood as Thou shalt not murder, in the new translations, and is apparent from the multiple times God commanded Israel to Kill. Today in the model penal codes for intentional killings, some of the first words are, "the unlawful killing of another...." This assumes that there are lawful times to kill.
Now back to the fully auto pistol, if George washington and his men had those, and used them in our revelutionary war against Britian would it be murder or a lawful killing. Well, that depends on who won.
I do not believe that america is in danger of loosing the majority of the freedoms that we hold so dear, but I will not be naieve and believe that fighting for freedom is a thing of the past, and not be reality in a reletively short time. And if the time came where it was war between the people who wanted to preserve rights in our country, against those who would Unconsitutionally deny us those rights, I would want every possible means of perserving those rights. And in that situation I can think of many reasons to have a fully automatic handgun. For this reason I believe there is a need for such a weapon. Not that I ever intend to use it, or want to use it, but if tomarrow came and the country grew tired of muslims and were recreating the Death camps for them, like hitler had 65 years ago, I would have no problem defending the right for the muslims to believe as they would and put my life in jeparody for. I believe that many people in the forum feel the same way. Even more so if it was their own beliefs and rights in jeparody. If I was to be jailed for my belief in God, I could handly that, but if anyone tried to kill me or my family for our belief in God; well, I would shoot to kill believing that it would be a lawful killing under our laws.
Well, I guess this reply has run on long enough. I had a soapbox and I got on it. In short,
There is a need for any and all weapons
The citizens have needs of those weapons for lawful killings.
This right is in the 2nd amendment, to lose it we would as a country have to amend the consitution, and until then our right to have weapons should not be unreasonably legislated.
Patrick OUt
