Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The so-called "gun control" advocates have spent the last several decades proving (inadvertently) that their half measures do not work. "Assault weapons" bans, waiting periods, "gun free" zones, background checks, and all the rest rarely reduce the crime rate, and often result in an increase instead.
One of the most important effects to letting everybody carry a gun if they want to, and hands down the most effective at actually reducing crimes, is deterrence.
If all so-called "gun control" laws were eliminated (i.e. if the 2nd amendment were actually obeyed), making it legal for any adult to carry, most of them still wouldn't bother. But a few would. And a criminal who's thinking about robbing someone, or raping or even murdering, he'd have to think twice knowing that there are probably a few people in the crowd who have a gun and know how to use it. He'd never know which one(s) it is, and so couldn't know who to defend against until too late.
And so he may well decide not to commit his robbery or murder at all. A few truly insane criminals would still go ahead. But a large number of crimes would now never happen in the first place. All without a shot being fired.
But how would we know, exactly, how many crimes got prevented this way? The effect is, simply nothing happened. How to you quantify that, effective and beneficial though it is?
I disagree. Ammunition is an integral part of keeping and bearing arms. It's also illogical to think that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights did not consider a future and the advancements that come with that future. By the logic you apply here the internet could be under the total control of the government al North Korea and all speech on it strictly controlled because the internet did not exist in the 18th century.
The Constitution has been called a "living, breathing document" and I submit that in that regard technological advancements in arms and ammunition are very much covered. Including all action types, ergonomic advancements, sighting etc. And ammunition being an essential component of the ability to keep and bear arms it is as much a part of the 2A as firearms themselves.
Computers did not exist when the Constitution was written so are our personal records and anything else stored on our devices not covered under the 4th amendment? I don't believe the founders were so short sighted as to think that the Bill of Rights would only apply to the times in which they lived. Indeed, in that aspect the Constitution does evolve to encompass us in the times we now live.
Others believe in that aspect that certain rights, namely the right to arms, is now obsolete and the document can and should evolve to strike the 2A from the Bill of Rights. I disagree with this as well. While I do not believe that WMDs are a covered class of arms conventional small arms and even up to artillery is covered.
These classes were covered at the time of ratification of the Constitution. I believe the founders believed a citizen militia should be able to function effectively (being well regulated) on the battlefield and in defense of home and community against whatever foes might be arrayed against us. Criminal or military.
The Constitution evolves just as we ourselves evolve. Staying abreast of the times.
Beside that, cartridge ammo and repeating arms did exist, along with many other forms of arms that were not and were never considered for restriction.
Oh. Something else. In a country where a policeman can shoot and kill an defenseless unarmed man begging not to be shot and then be acquitted by a court I would rather see the cops disarmed before the citizenry.
I have long advocated that the citizens can and should have access to the very same arms used by police. If they need "assault rifles" then so do we. We live on the streets they patrol, and if they need to be armed a certain way then so do we the people.
I also believe the police have been given far to much authority. In search and seizure and particularly in use of lethal force. The latter has become a go to methodology even when circumstances do not warrant it. The incident you reference in your post is a prime example of police being above the laws they are supposed to enforce. This is unacceptable.
And I'm sick to death of everyone who puts on a uniform and a badge being called a "hero." Citizens face the very same dangers everyday that the police do, up to and including armed threat. We have a certain and concrete right to be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones. In this aspect we stand to lose more and have more incentive than the police do in that defense.
It's just a job to them. It's all we hold dear and worth dieing for. So, whatever weapons the police deem necessary to do their job we citizens have a right to in defense of all we live for.
Silly argument. No way could ammunition not be considered as arms under the 2A, especially given the background of how it came about.
Also, the BoR is technology independent. The internet is fully covered by the 1A, and it didn't have even the barest scrap of conception when the BoR was written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
I used to reload eight while I was still huunting. Reloading at home would cease. That is not an infringement of 2A. Self contained ammo didn't exsist when the Bill of Rights was created.
Beside that, cartridge ammo and repeating arms did exist, along with many other forms of arms that were not and were never considered for restriction.
The standard firearms used in George Washington's time, which even hysterical liberals grudgingly admit were protected by the 2nd amendment, would be hugely restricted today, almost to the point of being banned. Anyone designing a modern long gun that fired the bullets used by the colonials, would find it banned from the get-go.
Some years back, the government arbitrarily picked a bullet size of .50 caliber (one-half inch diameter), made up a new name for guns firing bullets larger than that, and announced that such a gun was now a "Destructive Device".
The "Brown Bess" musket was the standard gun for British troops back then (a lot of Americans had them too), and it fired a ball around .69" in diameter. Design a gun that fires that size today, and you can expect a visit from a SWAT team, just in case you're one of those unruly Americans who might not want to turn it over peacefully to the government. Only if you make a gun that is exactly identical to the 250-plus year old Brown Bess design, would you have any hope of keeping it.
Same thing for the various long guns made in this country, or imported from other places in Europe, in the late 1700s. Just about anything you would find in a typical American home back then, fired a bullet .58" or larger. All forbidden today for anything designed after about 1950, unless you filled out a stack of forms three inches thick, sent fresh, perfect copies to a dozen or more officials, paid a huge fine, and waited a year or more for the government to grudgingly give you permission to keep and bear it.
In Washington's time, it was hard to find ANY typical American household with a gun firing a bullet of the diameters used today. Most colonials would laugh at it, calling a varmint gun... and that was the polite response.
It takes an especially robot-like liberal to maintain that the 2nd amendment protects only the weapons in common use on the day it was written... and in the same breath heavily restrict or ban any newer gun that would use the same size ammo and perform the same way those guns did.
But that's who we have trying to impose on us more and more laws they blithely call "reasonable" restrictions.
The idea that the Govt can force people to hand over weapons/ammo with compensation is an equally good way to get a lot of people killed in a short amount of time.
Most gun owners didn't get their weapons for the purpose to selling them for money, but for a different purpose entirely. One that becomes paramount when the government tries to force them to give them up.
With or without "compensation".
Disarming a populace is a very bad idea. Even the Countries that have actually attempted it are still plagued with violence and only a liberal would think it's ok to be stabbed to death and not shot. In CA it's now NOT a felony to steal a gun less than one thousand dollars. Legal gun owners face pages of crap bills that would give them more jail time than a ghetto rat or tweeker caught burglarizing their house and stealing a handgun.
In one of the proposals it actually would fetch the gun owner more jail time for not noticing a gun missing than it would for the dirt bag POS stealing it.
Beside that, cartridge ammo and repeating arms did exist, along with many other forms of arms that were not and were never considered for restriction.
There was no interest in restricting the peoples access to arms in any way. Quite the opposite the intention was to keep a central government from denying the people access to weapons. Throughout our history as a nation it has been the accepted practice for the citizenry to use the very same weapons the military uses. From the Charrleville musket to the AR 15.
And it does pay to point out as you did that"arms" is not just reference specifically to firearms. They are of course the main point, but there were and are other weapons in consideration. Edged weapons were still in common use back then, and I believe the 2A could be considered to preclude bans on such weapons such as bans that the UK has implemented.
Oh the ban happy types just slaver at the thought of UK style laws being passed here. There they systematically banned all firearms from private ownership just like ticking off a list. And when criminls started using other weapons they started banning those. First it was knives and swords (but even kitchen implements are included) and next it will be scissors or any other sharp tools.
Sheesh they are treating their citizens like a kindergarten class. Nothing sharper than a crayon. Yet they are still having regular bomb, knife and vehicle attacks by terrorists and I'm sure that their violent criminal types all comply with the bans on anything and everything that could be used as a weapon. The thinking just eludes my understanding.
In the UK my kitchen would be considered an arsenal, and I would have to register all my chefs tools. My hunting and field knives would land me in prison, and since I actually own swords... The Japanese katana is specifically banned by name as what amounts to a WMD. It is considered a horrifying weapon in the UK. (sigh) Yea, I think I can do without UK style weapons laws.
There was no interest in restricting the peoples access to arms in any way. Quite the opposite the intention was to keep a central government from denying the people access to weapons. Throughout our history as a nation it has been the accepted practice for the citizenry to use the very same weapons the military uses. From the Charrleville musket to the AR 15.
And it does pay to point out as you did that"arms" is not just reference specifically to firearms. They are of course the main point, but there were and are other weapons in consideration. Edged weapons were still in common use back then, and I believe the 2A could be considered to preclude bans on such weapons such as bans that the UK has implemented.
Oh the ban happy types just slaver at the thought of UK style laws being passed here. There they systematically banned all firearms from private ownership just like ticking off a list. And when criminls started using other weapons they started banning those. First it was knives and swords (but even kitchen implements are included) and next it will be scissors or any other sharp tools.
Sheesh they are treating their citizens like a kindergarten class. Nothing sharper than a crayon. Yet they are still having regular bomb, knife and vehicle attacks by terrorists and I'm sure that their violent criminal types all comply with the bans on anything and everything that could be used as a weapon. The thinking just eludes my understanding.
In the UK my kitchen would be considered an arsenal, and I would have to register all my chefs tools. My hunting and field knives would land me in prison, and since I actually own swords... The Japanese katana is specifically banned by name as what amounts to a WMD. It is considered a horrifying weapon in the UK. (sigh) Yea, I think I can do without UK style weapons laws.
Assault swords. Glad I don't live under that type of oppression. A serial number on a steak knife.....what evs.
You don't think something like this can be can be made powered by RF excitation?
No. And they are basically battery holders and they work at best for six months or so. And they only work if someone interested is close enough to hear. Which is pretty close.
RF tags have ranges of a few feet and no smarts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Japanese katana is specifically banned by name as what amounts to a WMD. It is considered a horrifying weapon in the UK. (sigh) Yea, I think I can do without UK style weapons laws.
