talbotlucas.org: a word to the wise is sufficient

I've been confused this week, reading criticisms of op-eds and other news items in the wake of the expiration of the assault weapons ban. Many who support fewer restrictions on gun ownership seemed to be making a big deal when the phrase "machine guns" was used in connection with or as synonymous with "assault weapons." I thought they referred to the same thing, or that machine guns were a subset of assault weapons, but it seems they are not. There is a difference, and Slate explains it.

I know very well what the Second Amendment says, but quite honestly, I'm not sure why anyone should be able to own one of these. I'm with Fran Lebowitz on this point: "No one gets to have a gun." Several years ago, in an interview with Mirabella magazine, she noted:

No one gets to have a gun. Of course you can't have a gun. If you would think about it for one second, it's a ridiculous question. You can't have a nuclear bomb. You can't have a scud missile. You can't have a gun. It's like when you were a kid, and you asked your father "Can I have a horse?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because we're not rich enough." Same thing. "Can I have a gun?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because it's insane. That's why."And all those questions about what kind of bullets should be legal. The whole discussion is from the inside of a deranged mind.

There are a few guns that I think are quite beautiful--the .50-caliber Magnum by Smith & Wesson comes to mind--but I really don't feel comfortable with the ease with which one can acquire a gun, and I'm not sure I would trust most people with one.

Here's an article about the .50-caliber one I mentioned. I love the line about its release being "an opportunity for backpackers."