But I thought police supported the ban?
We often hear how some politicians err police support the assault weapons ban, well not this guy:
I look at the assault weapons ban kind of like the teacher you had in grade school who, after getting hit in the back of the head with a spit ball, made the entire class stay after school. Everyone was punished for the actions of one. While it’s true that there have been some horrific, terrible crimes against people committed with these weapons in this country, do we punish everyone for the actions of a few?
One note, however, is this paragraph:
A few hours after talking with Mr. McMahon, I ran across a story on the Internet while researching a workshop I am going to give this fall. It was the news story of a young police officer killed in the line of duty by a 16-year-old boy with one of these types of weapons. After shooting the officer, the suspect killed himself. That is what got me to thinking more about this weapons ban.
Actually, the weapon used in that shooting (the one here in Tennessee that tragically took the life of Jason Scott) was an SKS, which is not covered by the ban.
August 5th, 2004 at 11:45 am
I have never ever heard of anyone who claimed that the 2nd Amendment includes small nuclear devices. Now, maybe there are such people, but if there are, they are nowhere NEAR as visible or influential as the other extreme.
August 5th, 2004 at 12:13 pm
You say you haven’t ever heard of someone who claimed the 2nd Amendment includes small nuclear devices? Well, I guess you missed this post. I think that the Second Amendment as written covers nuclear arms. I think the average citizen would be absolutely insane to want to own one, but I do not think the Constitution allows banning them.
Of course, there are a lot of restrictions that fall short of a ban and would pass muster when applied to nuclear weapons. For example, safe storage requirements: nobody wants the government poking their nose into every home to check that firearms are properly stored, but with a nuclear weapon it would be perfectly reasonable to prohibit their storage anywhere that the effects of the blast would damage someone else (or their property). But if Bill Gates wants to purchase a large tract of desert somewhere, I don’t see anything wrong with the principle involved.
I don’t actually talk about this much, for obvious reasons. It’s an idea that doesn’t score points with a lot of people. But the principle is sound: private individuals must have access to weapons of the same magnitude as those available to government. Otherwise, the balance of power between citizen and government is disrupted; look at the negative effects this has already had in the US. How could the people successfully revolt against the government, as our founders did, under the threat of nuclear annihiliation in the event of success?
We should not expect technology to stand still. That has consequences, often times scary ones. Perhaps we do need to re-evaluate the protection offered by the Second Amendment, and pass an amendment to exclude nuclear weapons. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that there is an implicit exclusion in the Constitution: there is emphatically not.
August 5th, 2004 at 2:59 pm
I certainly don’t disagree with you here.
All right, well, now I HAVE heard of someone who thinks the 2nd covers nukes. I’d still wager that are FAR more people holding the other extreme view.