P/sunny
84°
P/sunny
Hi 85° | Lo 61°

Letter: Misleading language from anti-gun crowd

The new term trotted out by the anti-gun crowd – “military-style weapons” – has me shaking my head and wondering. What in the world are they talking about?

Any weapon used in a combat situation is a military-style weapon. This clever use of the English language is perfect to sway people. Just because a gun looks like a one you might have seen in movies like Rambo doesn’t mean it is any more lethal than a hunting gun.

Shotguns can put as may as 17 pellets the size of a .32-caliber bullet in the air with one shot. A typical revolver takes seconds to reload with a speed loader.

Since when does the legislative branch legislate “style”? To me, this is like saying you can’t own a car that looks too fast. Style is subjective.

Another argument by the anti-gun crowd is this: “You don’t need an ‘assault weapon’ to hunt deer.” First, the Second Amendment says “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.” It does not say “the right to hunt deer.” The word “militia” implies using weapons that would be useful in combat. Second, where does the government get off telling me what I do or do not need? In a free society, I’m sorry, you can’t tell me what I do or do not need.

Would you rather invade a house in Massachusetts where most people are unarmed, or in New Hampshire where someone might possess a gun, (one useful in a combat situation) whether or not you choose to call it “military style”?

BRANDON HARVEY

Danbury

The "Military-Style" firearms decried by The Left is just another attempt to demonize some firearms they seek to ban. Senator Feinstein's coining and using the term "assault pistol" I thought was the most egregious until I saw Mr Currie's post. No, Bruce, the 2nd Amendment is not there to preserve our right to hunt or target shoot. It is there to allow private citizens the weapons to fight an oppressive government. The Constitution is not there to limit the rights of citizens. It's there to limit the power of government. This is precisely what The Left fails to grasp.

You evade both the point of my post and the history of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. NH's 2nd Amendment is more clear, it says nothing about fighting "an oppressive government," instead it makes clear the right is linked to the need for a "well-regulated militia." [Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. So I ask again: "Are there no reasonable limits that can be placed on this right?" I have yet to see a response to my question from any of the "Carp Per Diem" crowd.

I see the 2nd Amendment this way. The citizens already owned guns, and there was no law against owning them. The Amendment is not about gun ownership, which was a given, but to allow folks to organize as a militia if needed. That is how I read it. If a shooter does not have an automatic weapon, he will just bring more guns to the scene. So he is not hampered in my opinion. When you water down any right it opens the door to watering down that right down the road. Focus on mental health. We seem to have a lot of shooters who go off their meds and spiral down into mania. Clear med records in background checks. Folks are caught with a weapon they got illegally, a 10 year sentence.

More straw man and red herring tactics. There should be minimal infringement on rights to bear arms. It should not fall on those who follow the law to pay the price for those who abuse their rights. You want to lump all people into one bunch and eliminate the tool rather than the behaviors.

Since when did quoting the NH and US Constitutions in support of a position on a constitutional issue become "straw man and red herring tactics"? And when did asking a simple question about whether there are any limits to be placed on this right become a red herring? It goes right to the heart of the matter. I don't think you know what straw men and red herring really are--though your own posts rely on one or the other frequently.

You avoid the issue at hand. Are there no reasonable limits one can place on the kinds of weapons one can possess in a "free" society? Machine gun? Bazooka? Grenade launcher? Military style weapons all. The 1st Amendment prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech" yet the courts have long recognized there are limits to this freedom. An originalist reading of the 2nd Amendment might limit gun ownership to those weapons available to a militia in 1789. While you write that in a free society, no one can tell you "what I do or do not need", the NH Constitution may beg to differ when it says, in Article 3: "When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society...."

Bruce-the point is now moot. Virtually any weapon or any part of any weapon can be produced anywhere with a 3-D printer. There is no law that can, in any way, inhibit that. This may force the whole conversation back to where it belongs it's not the technologies it's the behaviors that need to be addressed. Everything else is wasted gesturing and arm waving.

I think that all of those might be appropriate for people to own and use for recreational purposes. They should be allowed, those three classes of weapons only, based on your lack of a criminal record. Your surrender of rights plays into your belief that others know what is better for us than we do. That is arrogant, pompous and no, we should not surrender any rights. PS-The US Constitution is trumped by the NH Constitution or it should be that way as we are a Republic, not a centralized Democracy. But if you think that I want any part of YOU deciding what is best for ME, think again. You would impose your narrow minded ideas on others in a heartbeat, you do it here daily.

Duly noted: itsa is O.K. with folks getting their jollies with machine guns, bazookas, or grenade launchers, because that's what the "freedom" implied or intended in the 2nd Amendment allows. As for your statement: "The US Constitution is trumped by the NH Constitution or it should be..." that issue was settled by something called "The Civil War"--perhaps you've heard of it? Even more importantly , there's a clause in the Constitution in Article 6, known as the "Supremacy Clause", which refers to the U.S. Constitution as the "supreme law of the land." There's also the 14th Amendment, which places additional limits on state authority when it conflicts with individual liberties. You can look it up.

The fourteenth amendment should be repealed.

"Military-style weapons" This means that if you take one of those rubber band guns and slap a pistol grip, a carrying handle and an adjustable stock on it - you've got yourself a "military-style weapon!"

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.