I see lots of rhetoric in the various posts Odin has made, but I think he's letting himself get carried away somewhat. For example, let's take his citation of the Second Amendment: "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." Emphasis mine. It seems to me that a lot of people pretty much ignore the entire first half of the Second Amendment, including Odin. I think gun ownership is okay, but I also think it should be regulated, and indeed, the wording of the Second Amendment strongly suggests that the intent was to regulate gun ownership via militia membership, and in exchange, you couldn't just arbitrarily disarm people.
from
http://ivn.us/2012/12/21/second-amendment-individual-rights-vs-collective-rights/Throughout most of U.S. history, the Second Amendment was not viewed as protecting an individual right. It wasn’t until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment addresses an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices on the high court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. by dividing the amendment into separate, but equal clauses.
“The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause,” Justice Scalia wrote in the court’s opinion. “The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.”
To simplify what he said:
“The Amendment could be rephrased, ‘Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’”
The majority opinion stated that not only is the right to bear arms an individual right, separate from military service or service in a collective body, but the phrase “keep and bear” means individuals have a right to possess and carry in the event of confrontation.
Ergo, "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."
As for Beretta moving, let's be honest here - it isn't as if Maryland is preventing Beretta from selling any of its products in general. They just can't sell specific kinds of guns within Maryland's borders. They aren't being forced to move, they're choosing to move because they are upset with Maryland's laws regarding gun ownership. And while that's their decision, let's not pretend that there isn't at least some vindictiveness there. "You aren't going to let me sell everything I make here in this state? Well, then, I'll just move my company to a different state instead."
Yes, and it is their prerogative to be vindictive. Why continue to do business in a hostile state environment? Why not move to a more gun-friendly state? I would bet if you made product X, and your home state outlawed product X, you would also not be too happy with that state.
Regarding the AR-15, it is a rifle, a semi-automatic gun with a magazine. However, it was also used to murder children at an elementary school. Is it any surprise how many people are reacting? I personally don't see the point in all the fuss about limiting magazine size. When you get right down to it, a reasonably skilled shooter can switch magazines in only a few seconds; small-capacity magazines wouldn't have spared any of those children from being murdered. While I realize it's largely an effort to be seen as doing something after a massacre like that, I'm of the opinion that half-baked responses are worse than no response at all.
Here we can disagree. An AR-15 with a five-round magazine is no more deadly than any semi-automatic hunting rifle, like say a Remington Model 750 in .270 Winchester caliber, with a five-round magazine.
End of rhetoric.
Odin, King of the Gods
