Nightline on Obama, gun control

[unixronin]

Nightline broadcast a good and pretty balanced segment last night, discussing Barak Obama's gun control position and the massive gun buying rush that's going on across the US now by people concerned that if they don't buy them now, they won't be able to.

Particular points to note:

• The customer who keeps repeating to the reporter, "Never mind Obama's words, look at his actions."¹
• The gunshop owner reporting Obama supporters coming into his store wearing their Obama buttons, who just voted for him but are still afraid he'll ban guns.

[1]  You might have seen me say this once or twice.  Assuming you've been paying attention.

Comments

[skellington.livejournal.com]

I'll let unixronin follow up on the subject of semi-automatics, but there's another underlying assumption you're missing.

It is a person's right AND responsibility to provide for their own self defense. The government (at any level) has no responsibility nor ability to arrest people before they commit crimes. (Imagine how big of a mess we'd have if the government started locking up people because they claimed they were ABOUT to commit a crime..)

So as a constitutional matter, (and a common law right to self defense going back to Roman times), the primary purpose of a firearm is self defense. It is not to participate in recreation (either sport shooting or hunting).

A semi-automatic, or a revolver, is much more suitable for self defense than a single-shot pistol or break action shotgun.

[laurarey.livejournal.com]

(Sorry, original reply was mis-posted.)

That's an interesting point. It opens the whole can of worms about who gets to define "self defense". Do you use the government's definition or define it according to your own perspective?

I can see how a semi-automatic would be more suitable (and convenient) for self defense purposes.

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

The law generally defines "self-defense" as whether a "reasonable person" would believe they were in danger of life or limb, or was defending the life or limb of a third party. Texas is the only state that allows lethal force in defense of property that I'm aware of (although a number of states have a "castle doctrine" under which intruders in your home are presumed to have the intent and capability of doing you harm).

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Does not Georgia consider arson to be a "heinous crime" justifying you in using deadly force? It did the last time I checked....