Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Musket vs. StreetSweeper



THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT
TO OWN AN ASSAULT WEAPON.




Every so often we start a serious discussion of deadly weapons. From my perspective, there is no reason that a sane, normal person needs an AK-47. I searched the Constitution and found no supporting reference. I researched the writings of the founders of the republic, with similar results.

Some people may "want" an AK-47; some may even feel a "need" for an AK-47. But the Constitution does not support anyone in a supposed right to keep one at home where children, visitors and, yes, thieves, can get their hands on it.

For those who insist that we adhere to a strict construction of the wording of the Second Amendment as written in the 18th Century, so, too, we should adhere to a strict definition as to the meaning of "arms" as used in the 18th Century: Muzzle-loading rifles, then breech-loading ones, and muskets, as well as the sort of Wogdon dueling pistols used by Vice President Aaron Burr to kill Alexander Hamilton in 1804 in New Jersey (because dueling was outlawed in New York).

One should have a right to "keep" all other weapons at a local armory (military or private) after an extensive background check and training.
One should have a right to "bear" these other weapons in plain sight by signing them out and specifying the purpose, be it hunting, target practice, parade, etc., after which the weapons would be returned for "safe keeping."

There is no absolute right to own assault weapons or so-called street-sweeping hand-guns that fire 33 bullets in nano-seconds, to conceal them from public view, or to bring them in open displays of intimidation to political meetings of our elected officials.