In a confrontation that has received a fair amount of attention, Republican Senator Ted Cruz pressed Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein on her bill to reinstate a ban on assault weapons. Mr. Cruz argued that the starting point of the discussion should be the Constitution–and then pressed Ms. Feinstein on whether she would apply regulations to the First and Fourth Amendments (dealing with freedom of speech and the protection against unlawful search and seizure) similar to those she is seeking on the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms).
“The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” Cruz said–and then asked whether the First Amendment should “only apply” to certain books or the Fourth Amendment should only protect certain people from unreasonable searches.
Senator Feinstein reacted sharply, saying, “I’m not a 6th grader. I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal with the Constitution. I have great respect for it.” She later said she felt “patronized” by Senator Cruz, whom she called “arrogant.”
Let me take these claims in reverse order. Having watched Senator Cruz from a distance, I can see why people view him as arrogant. If I were a close adviser, I would tell him so directly and counsel him to keep that tendency in check. It’s not necessary, it can be off-putting and eventually get him into trouble.
That said, I don’t think Cruz’s questions were either inappropriate or patronizing. He was pressing Senator Feinstein in the hopes of trapping her into an inconsistent application of constitutional rights. The problem is she didn’t handle the question well from a substantive point of view–and it took Senator Dick Durbin to make the obvious rejoinder, which is that our constitutional rights are not absolute.
For example, people don’t have a right, in the name of the First Amendment, to libel people, to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, to incite people to violence, and to sell child pornography at a public library (or anywhere else, for that matter).
As for the issue of firearms, the question can easily be thrown back at Senator Cruz. Does he believe in an absolute right to bear any arms at any time for any reason? What about fully automatic weapons (which are heavily restricted)? How about a rocket-propelled grenade launcher? A bazooka? An M-1 tank? Would Senator Cruz draw the line at any of these? Of course he would, and he would be right to do so. And in doing so, he would answer his own question. He would be conceding that there is no absolute right to bear arms, just like there’s no absolute right when it comes to freedom of speech. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon, rightly pointed out in United States v. Heller that, like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It leaves room to regulate guns.
It seems to me, then, that the philosophical issue is pretty clear: in America we have a right, but not an absolute right, to bear arms. What we’re talking about is a prudential application of restrictions on guns. The debate is precisely where to draw the lines. What separates wise lawmakers from foolish ones is where and how you draw the lines.
too cute by half Pete, Cruz was not asking about the absolute right to free speech, he was asking about books … and the banning of some books … he did not claim an absolute right to bear arms …
not sure what your point was other than to talk about stuff that Cruz wasn’t talking about and then act like you had the answer to a question which he didn’t ask …
The answer is that it was a typical Commentary based left-handed compliment designed to make Cruz come off as bad even when he was right on the substance. If anyone came off as arroagant it was Feinstein, demonstrating the usual establishment liberal mindset of refusing to acknowledged the seriousness of genuinely conservative perspectives (as we saw with Nancy Pelosi and Obamacare).
Thank you, JeffC – I think Wehner too often tries to hard to pose as super open-minded. It's a little nauseating.
"What we’re talking about is a prudential application of restrictions on guns." You are fool if you believe that is what the Democrats are talking about … and I don't think you are a fool so why you are lying about what the "debate" is about Why would you do that ? n n Got a bit of gun grabber in you Pete ?
I like Cruz, but he stepped in it with this one. There are many, better points to be made about firearms. Such as 1) past attempts to ban such weapons have had no measurable effect 2) thousands of current gun laws now go unenforced 3) so-called high capacity magazines are easy to swap during reload–especially when a predator gets to choose the environment where he commits his crimes (how many 5 year-olds are going to charge while an Adam Lanza is reloading?) 4) criminals do not obey gun laws any more than they do other laws. n nThis whole 'conversation' does nothing but demonstrate the vapidity of the elite white gun control (and every other kind of control) advocates. Logic need not apply. n nBut Cruz managed to make DiFi a sympathetic character for the news media while making no real important point.
I do not believe Feinstein did well in this exchange either. She came across as obnoxious and evasive.
"But Cruz managed to make DiFi a sympathetic character for the news media…" Let's face it, PDQuig, that's a low, low, bar! A female liberal senator – how can the media NOT make her a sympathetic character?
Cruz asked a straightforward question. Feinstein didn't answer. She did what liberals always do. She changed the subject. She claimed indignation and assault via lecture. But you see PDQuig Cruz and the rest of us aren't going to play that game any longer. He immediately came back with a statement to the effect "You didn't answer my question." Then he asked again. She simply replied "No." n nCruz didn't make DiFi a sympathetic character. That is the game we are not going to play any longer. She is a big girl. She can answer the question. You're a big boy/girl. Chose a side.
Naturally in reciting the 2nd Amendment, Cruz omitted the first clause. Nothing "well regulated" allowed in GOPer World.
It is the militia that is to be "well regulated", not firearms, Hillel. Nice try, though.
Just out of curiosity, how does one regulate a militia that is just Joe Citizen sitting in his house? Other than regulating the firearms that it.
Geek, here is a relatively simple and straightforward response: n"It means trained or kept in proper working order. So not only does the 2nd amendment recognize the pre-existing, individual right to bear arms, it also recognizes the right to practice training exercises with them. Basically any and all gun laws are inherently unconstitutional and illegal in the United States of America." n nYou can always <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=what+is+a+well+regulated+militia&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35">search the topic for a variety of opinions … n
Some women use the claim that they are being patronized in much the same way that some blacks accuse whites with whom they disagree of racism. Both are used to cast aspersions on whoever they are debating and to end any dialogue.
Cruz actually addressed this later when discussing the Heller decision and its prongs as to where a gun is a dangerous and unusual weapon not in common use. n nAnd it's clear, like the good prosecutor he was, his first line of inquiry was a set-up, but his line of questioning was disrupted when the other Dems rushed to defend Feinstein.
Wehner totally misses Cruz's point. Cruz is not saying the rights are absolute. But he is saying that consistency requires giving the same respect to the 2nd Amendment that is given to the 1st.
I think this is correct. You could see the same sputtering reasoning from Feinstein that Wehner is employing when she asked "should people be allowed to own bazookas?" Do you think Cruz is really advocating that? Do you really think he doesn't understand that all rights are not absolute? The tactic here is to draw Feinstein out and make her take on the Constitution, to offer arguments of substance and not the usual phony indignation about guns, which she immediately reverted to. Should Congress be able to pass a law banning automatic weapons in general? Of course. Should Congress be submitting lists of specific semi-auto weapons that it doesn't like? Cruz's argument is no because then it should also be allowed to submit a list of specific books it doesn't like. Very bad precedent.
While it is true that "people don’t have a right, in the name of the First Amendment, to libel people, to yell “fire” in a crowded theater," this is NOT because there are limits to free speech that can be decided by congress, but because doing so is a violation of the theater owner's and the patrons property rights, and more (if someone is trampled). Mr. Wehner's casual acceptance of a "wise" congress drawing lines where it sees fit is based on a lack of understanding of rights.
The persona one projects is of the utmost importance in politics. Unfortunately, Sen. Cruz always comes across as smug, arrogant, and prosecutorial. n nConservatives would be much better off backing away from him, as well as the nutty Rand Paul, and hitching our wagons to Rubio and Jindal, two very smart guys who also happen to be very likeable. n
If Cruz is somehow "smug" for asking questions that need to be asked that the spineless wimps of a more RINO bent would rather not ask, then we might as well coronate Hilary in 2017 already since that kind of attitude is going to guarantee defeat. n nOne "conservative" I'd rather see us back away from is Rob Portman, who I hope gets challenged and beaten next time out now that he's revealed himself to be a man of no integrity whatsoever on the issue of marriage and can be turned on the most sophomorically shallow of reasons.
If smug, arrogant and prosecutorial were political liabilities, you'd have never heard of Barack Obama.
Touche! Le presidente et une douche.
I think it would be better to concentrate on the practical question, to wit: Will any of the gun control proposals being put forward by Senator Feinstein & Co. actually reduce gun crime or make the American people safer? Since the answer is no, doesn't it follow that such curbs are constitutionally impermissible? After all, it’s hard to argue in favor of a compelling government interest when the futility and ineffectiveness of the proposed government action is obvious. That conceded (as reality dictates that it must be) there can be no justification for tampering with a constitutionally guaranteed right. n nAs for Senator Cruz's alleged lack of charm, considering the collection of horribles on the Democratic side of the congressional aisle, I see no problem with his occasional display of sharp elbows. So Senator Feinstein feels "patronized." Too bad.
Would he have been, ah, "arrogant and patronizing" if he had the same discussion with a male Senator? nFeinstein can't have it both ways. She can't kvetch to be treated equally, and then whine and snivel that her precious feminine sensitivities were not respected by the "nasty brute".
If you have a right of free speech and valid law restricts what you can say, then where is the inconsistency in having a right to bear arms and valid law restricting some of the arms you can bear? n nMoreover, the analogy to the Fourth Amendment as proposed by Cruz is illogical. That certain searches and seizures are unreasonable vouches for their unconstitutionality. The question of whether protection from them applies only to certain people has no parallel in asking whether certain speech can be banned under the First Amendment. The parallel would be in asking whether certain speech already constitutional can still be prohibited. But that question has no application to the initial question Cruz was asking. And his question assumed any arms, ipso facto, can be borne. But, clearly, just as there are limits on certain speech there are, entirely consistently, as noted, limits on certain arms. n nSo Wehner's little analysis is right on the mark and it's Cruz who made a logical hash of the issues. n nI'd agree, though, that Feinstein was bad in the exchange.
Cruz was not asking what searches would be allowed, but to whom they would apply.
No Senator Cruz asked an appropriate question. The Second Amendment does not, in and of itself, ban any weapon. Restrictions on weapons that can be owned and carried by private citizens are embodied in laws passed by Congress and are constitutional only if a compelling government interest can be demonstrated. This is obviously so in the case of nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, machineguns, etc. where a compelling government interest—public safety—makes such restrictions permissable. Similarly, the oft-cited restriction on First Amendment rights—shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater—is permissable because there are compelling government interests in assuring public safety and protecting other people's property rights. However, there is no compelling government interest that supports such measures as universal background checks and the assault weapons ban. Thus it does not follow that since some restrictions are constitutionally permissable, any restriction is constitutionally permissable. In other words, the burden of proof is on Senator Feinstein. Her inability to answer Cruz's question, and Durbin's shifty attempt to bail her out, exposed the weakness of their arguments in favor of more gun control.
You're setting up a straw man. You start off by agreeing the rights aren't absolute. But then you go on to explain it's the legislature that writes in restrictions into law that must meet constitutional standards. Nobody argued that isn't the case. n nCruz wasn't asking about discrete restrictions impinging on gun ownership and his questions weren't framed that way. Things like background checks, which are probably constitutional, but that's a different issue, never arose in the brief affray. And, for God's sake, nobody but nobody argued, another straw man, that because some restrictions are ok it means any restriction is ok. You're importing that spun from whole cloth into the exchange. n nFeinstein, who did poorly, didn't felicitously answer Cruz's first question, because it was a nonsensical, amorphous question, spreading out into the First and Fourth Amendments, as it did. She lost it and got emotional. But she in effect answered his question by necessarily implying that the rights aren't absolute, as Durbin went on succinctly to make clear. n nPlus the analysis buried in Cruz's first question was logically flawed as I have already demonstrated. n nIf you'd care to point out any specific error in my reasoning here or in my previous comment, knock yourself out.
Nope, no straw man. Because when you get right down to it, the people advocating gun control are making precisely that argument: Since some constitutional restrictions on firearms are valid, additional restrictions are also constitutionally valid. What other argument do they have? Can Feinstein, Durbin or you show that the restrictions currently being pushed by the Democrats—a ban on "assault weapons," universal background checks—would actually enhance public safety? Of course not. In fact, such empirical evidence as we have suggests that they wouldn't. That’s the issue that Cruz was getting at and it’s no wonder that Senator Feinstein got all flustered and sought refuge behind her own skirt. She has no case for her gun control proposals and she knows it. The individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right that, like freedom of speech, cannot be limited by Congress without good reason.
First, you're traveling way beyond the exchange among the Senators. Second, no one but one anywhere is arguing the mushrooming validity of restrictions. That may be an arguable effect but it's clearly not an argument. Restrictionsto the extent that they are different from lawful restrictions form a discrete legal issue in each instance of them. Third who knows where Cruz was going with his questions? That seems speculation. All I saw was the about six minute exchange. Fourth you're full of certitude. I'll leave it to the courts to determine case by case the legality of background checks, the bans on assault weapons and so on. Fifth, I have no data at hand but common sense tells me for example that background checks for the purchase of such lethality are appropriate. Why not take measures that have some impact on who gets guns? The trade off in a potential purchaser having to undergo such a check bothers me not at all. The common sense case for this measure seems self evident. Sixth, I cannot imagine why anyone would want or need an assault weapon either for hunting or self protection. So unless their ownership is heavily regulated, like being confined to designated places like gun ranges and so on, I am absolutely sympathetic to their ban, the legality of which I wouldn't predict but would expect. Seventh, I agree with the bromide that restrictions must based in good reasons for them. But as I noted books aren't guns and different considerations will apply. Finally, if yours is the point Cruz wanted to make whether declaratively or interrogatively, he should have. He was the author of the confusion that ensued from the six or minutes that I saw.From Heller, …Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms…..Sent from my iPad
Regarding assault weapons, you are asking the wrong question. ("Why should anyone want an assault weapon?") Or to put it another way, the relevant question should be directed to you and other advocates of the assault weapons ban: "Why do you think I shouldn't have one?" You spent a lot of time in the above post not answering that rather pertinent question. Which doesn't surprise me, because the honest answer is political dynamite. n nI leave aside the secondary points that "assault weapon" is a phony category and that no matter how you define them, they're responsible for only a fraction of a fraction of gun homicides.
P.S. If Cruz's point is, as some on this thread have suggested, that Congress needs to give the same latitude to bearing arms as to saying things or printing things, that too is absurd. Restrictions are grounded in the discrete content of the right. What we say, what we print are one kind of thing. Arms are another kind of thing. Reasonable or constitutionally valid restrictions will be congruent with the discrete subject matter of the right under consideration.
Actually, that's true, subject only to the government's compelling national interest in public safety and security—and the burden of proof rests with the government to demonstrate that proposed limitations and restrictions would further such an objective. Neither the proposed assault weapons ban nor universal background checks meet that standard. As for the article you cited, it offers no emperical evidence that an assault weapons ban would further the cause of public safety. As I pointed out, assault weapons currently account for a fraction of a fraction of all gun crime. That a ban on them would make it easier for the government to fight domestic terrorism is an implausible and constitutionally weak claim, to put it at the lowest. It would be much more plausible to say that limiting Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights would further that goal. On the bottom line, the article merely repeats your rhetorical question: "Why do you need an assault weapon?" n nAnyhow, the assault weapons ban is going nowhere. Constitutional issues aside, it's politically toxic. Ditto universal background checks, once people realize what they imply. (I've had a look at Senator Schumer's proposed law.)
" there is no compelling government interest that supports such measures as universal background checks and the assault weapons ban." n nlike heck there is not.
Really? What are they?
the obligation of the government to protect the public welfare and safety. n nmost of the murders in the US are committed with firearms. n n
Now provide emperical evidence that universal background checks or an assault weapons ban would further that objective.
nope. i don't have any need to do so. n nas long as it's shown that government has a legitimate interest that affords the scope to regulate, there's no need to debate the wisdom and efficacy of specific regulations. just not how it works, tom. n n nas long as they've authority, they get to exercise it as they will and it's up to opponents of their actions to prove the regulation excessive, capricious or needlessly intrusive and violative.
But that's precisely the point: It's not shown. And I must say, the extraordinary claim that "there's no need to debate the wisdom and efficacy of specific regulations" is very revealing of the mind-set of liberals, progressives and leftists.
no, tom, you are trying to twist. n nwe were discussing whether there were arguments to show whether there was a government interest that allowed for background checks and bans of auto weapons……… n n nwhether or not such regulations are ultimately wise is entirely a different question. and I claim that I needn't debate that wisdom in the context of whether the government(s) MAY pass such regs. n n nI most certainly both expect and desire that the various legislatures have a full debate when considering passage. n nso please, try not to change questions in midstream and avoid busting my chops if I don't jump along with you.
Yes, I noticed what we were discussing and as I said, there's nothing to show that there's a legitimate government interest in an assault weapons ban—which is one reason why Harry Reid decided not to bring it to the floor. Something similar will no doubt happen to Chuck Schumer's background check bill. n nWhat you're saying, really, is that Congress and the President have no obligation to follow or even pay much attention the the Constitution: They can do as they please, and it's up to the courts to blow the whistle on them. Is that really the kind of government we want? With Obama in the White House, it's certainly the kind of presidency we have.
no, tom, again. there is an interest. the federal government is indeed constrained by the Constitutional limits on legislation and as most all of the legislative seats are filled by lawyers and their senior staffers are also heavy with lawyers, they spend a great deal of energy attempting to craft bills that they don't expect to be struck down if they're serious in trying to enact the bills. n nall I've said is that there is obviously a legit government purpose in regulating weapons sales to the public and possession by the public and that the Court as well as the other branches recognize that there are limits to what regulations can be enforced as well as recognizing that the right to possess weapons is NOT absolute. n nsee Farmer v Higgins
Cruz is a bullshirt artist and even he knows that he had no real point in law. it was all about putting his puss on camera and while the CPAC Circle-Jerk is going on.
Could it be that he just likes effing with the opposition? When you are in the minority you may as well do some sh*t disturbing. Lord knows most of senators are walking and talking cadavers–GOP included.
I'm willing to consider that a bit of flinging his feces might be his sort of amusement. if'n he can't lean to forego it, might be something that gets him dispatched like a farm-raised mink ..or worse, sends him off to work on FOX
The American people have great respect for the President. We frowned on Congressman Wilson who shouted at President Obama, saying “You lie!” while the President was speaking in Congress. Governor Romney refrained from saying anything harsh during his campaign for the President, in sharp contrast to his very sharp words during his campaign for the nomination. Although President Obama harshly criticized former President Bush, the former President refrained from responding out of respect for the office of the President. Very few news media clearly criticize the President. n nImagine what would happen if someone would write a book severely criticizing Obama, listing what it claims are his lies and falsehoods, including the claim that Obama was not born in the U.S. Suppose the book wrote that Obama is a closet Moslem, who secretly plans to replace the U.S. Constitution with Moslem Sharia law. The authors would likely be sued. They would be fired from their place of work, and be treated as outcasts. In America today, we have respect for the President and do not act this way. n nThinking about this, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s statement that our Constitution gives Americans the freedom to write books critical of the government, and no legal action can be taken against such a person. After the Constitution was written, Americans demanded that it be amended to include this freedom. The idea was that if our leaders felt free of criticism, the American people would lose all their freedoms. This freedom is meant to insure our being a free people in a free country. Freedom to criticize and question the government is essential to America being a free people. n nAt this time of year, Jewish people celebrate Passover. A central idea of Passover is the importance to encourage our young people to ask questions. When Obama spoke to school children, he told them to behave and pay attention. I wrote him saying that when I teach I stress understanding and questioning, not paying attention. Our Founding Fathers incorporated many ideas from the Biblical Israelites into the Constitution. We need to continue with this spirit and be vigorous with questioning the government. n nWe need to understand that the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights are freedoms from possible government tyranny. We experienced the tyranny of the British King George, and wanted to insure no President would become tyrannical like King George. n nThose who justify gun ownership for reasons other than the need to oppose the government and wrong. The NRA is wrong for giving wrong reasons for gun ownership. Senator Feinstein is wrong for elaborating on the gun deaths she was witness to. Government leaders must always be fearful that citizens would use their guns to oppose government policies, for without this fear we cannot have a civil society. Our system of checks and balances, with our three branches of government, is not sufficient to guarantee America remains a prosperous free nation, without citizens having the ability to protest using guns. n nThe statement that we must restrict gun ownership in order to save lives is false, for far more lives are lost when people lose their freedoms. Gun ownership saves lives by guaranteeing freedom. n nTo clarify this point, we need specific examples. An American citizen shot and killed President Lincoln. The reason was his anger at Lincoln’s responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Booth felt that this was unnecessary, for the issue of Negro slavery could have been dealt with by doing things gradually. For example, demanding that families not be broken up, a rule that was universally accepted except in America. JFK was shot because Oswald felt that JFK deliberately supported Communism in Cuba by not sending in air cover during the Bay of Pigs. Israeli Prime Minister Rabin was shot because the shooter felt that Rabin’s support of the Oslo agreement, giving weapons to the Arabs, would result in large numbers of Israelis being killed by Arabs. n nIt is true that assassinations usually do not solve problems. Lincoln’s death did not resolve the hatred caused by the large numbers of fatalities in the Civil War. JFK’s death did not prevent Cuba from permanently remaining Communist. Rabin’s death did nothing to prevent the widespread killing of Jews by the newly armed Arabs. Sometimes assassinations do solve problems. Had the assassination against Hitler succeeded, World War II would not have happened. This is not the point. The point is the need for citizens to freely own guns is necessary in a free society. n nYes, let’s get with it. Let’s start condemning the President. There must be things we can criticize him about. Let’s condemn those who are silent in the face of wrongdoing, such as President Bush, Governor Romney, and Wolf Blitzer. Let us Americans speak up, with loud and clear voices, and keep our guns if we feel the need to use them to remain free.
nice comment, but paying attention needs to be stressed. it's rather an important step in acquiring an education and while I completely agree that understanding and questioning are vital, in a classroom setting, paying attention has to precede both.
Cruz asked a reasonable question that should have been the basis for further debate. If he were simply wrong it should have been easy for Feinstein to respond in a way that would have helped to educate the public and bolster support for the legislation she favors. If his question were not so much Constitutionally misguided as actually foolish or otherwise out of line, as some commenters here suggest, it would have been easy to refute. Instead Feinstein, who is no fool, resorted to ad hominem diversions.
The 2nd Amendment mentions the militia, and Heller clarifies that the Constitution recognizes an individual right to keep and bear militia-type arms at least. The scope of “keep and bear” will have to be evaluated by the courts but it’s clear that the right exists. The problem for Feinstein and the other would-be “assault weapon” banners is that the weapons they propose to restrict are precisely the ones most likely to be Constitutionally protected. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America among private citizens and is widely used by police departments. Saying you want to ban it while respecting the 2nd Amendment is like saying you want to ban the Bible while respecting the 1st. Feinstein et al are thus on extremely weak ground legally and must at all costs prevent an open discussion about the Constitutional legitimacy of their proposals. Cruz’s question was highly appropriate.
For example, people donu2019t have a right, in the name of the First Amendment, to libel people, to yell u201cfireu201d in a crowded theater, to incite people to violence, and ….”r nr nbut apparently by observing current behaviour they do have the 1st Amendment right to incite against Jews.
People do have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, if the theater is on fire. They don't have a right to FALSELY shout fire when there is no fire, but that really isn't a First Amendment issue.
Let's stay focused. We are talking about publishing books, not shouting fire.
Well I was pleased to learn that Senator Feinstein is not a sixth grader. Who knew? nI was surprised though that her sixth grade teacher lectured to her. Mine did not do so. nCould it be that she never got to the sixth grade?
I don't know why Cruz's first question isn't answered by: n n1. generally, by Durbin's framing Feinstein's fraught meandering as guaranteed rights have limits, they're not absolute; and n n2. more specifically, by the argument that other than adumbrating the constitutional reasoning on proper limits to first amendment rights with respect to speech, the adjudication, jurisprudence that is to say, of those limits has precious little about it that instructs us on appropriate limits on the right to bear ams?
Mr. Wehner makes the following statement: "As for the issue of firearms, the question can easily be thrown back at Senator Cruz. Does he believe in an absolute right to bear any arms at any time for any reason? What about fully automatic weapons (which are heavily restricted)? How about a rocket-propelled grenade launcher? A bazooka? An M-1 tank?" n nRegarding full automatic weapons: You can own them although there is annual licensing fee. As to other weapons, such as rocket-propelled grenade lauchers, bazooks, etc., I have no problem with a law-abiding citizen owning any of those (if he/she could afford it). Just remember that the number of people killed by governments in the twentieth century far outweighs the number of people killed by private firearms. n nA government that doesn't trust its citizens to be armed, doesn't deserve the trust of its citizens.
"The debate is precisely where to draw the lines. What separates wise lawmakers from foolish ones is where and how you draw the lines." n nYou are a fool, Mr. Wehner. An mushy, wet, metrosexual zebra, with yellow and red.