Spells wrote:I think this is a pretty dumb law, but I hope the people arguing against it have better arguments against it than "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"
Choice, free-market, finding the best weapon to suit your needs, using systems which require less training... The military has found 12~14" barreled shotguns, and 10.5" barreled rifles to best suit fighting inside buildings and city streets -- this is probably the closest our military has come to being involved in a self-defense situation. For a variety of reasons, which not all of us agree with, they have felt a high capacity pistol is best suited for that situation, as have many police departments. Aside from the high capacity pistol, we cannot have what our tax dollars have selected as the most effective tools to use to defend ourselves.
When faced w. a self-defense situation, the cop, the soldier, and the private citizen all face the same situation -- an aggressive, irrational opponent, w. an unknown number of friends, and help an unknown, but too long, time away.
Spells, I know some men you should meet. The first few times you meet a 6'5" strongman, 375 pounds, who's fond of a cocktail of GHB, Meth, Coke, and Steroids, and his friends, you're attitude about the sufficiency of that 5 shot 38 should change.
Likewise, the first time you see a drug cartel, w. armored vehicles from the Mexican Military running drugs through an area where the police response time is considered an abnormally lucky fluke if it's less than 5 hours, and where cartels are known for killing every man, woman, and child to have a free hand running drugs, you may revise your opinion that private citizens don't need machine guns, artillery, etc.
150 years ago, it was relatively common for Texans to have cannons w. exploding shells to protect themselves -- even replicas of the originals are now illegal.
By definition, no gun law will ever be effective against criminals. None ever has. Nor will any "prohibited areas" ever work. A criminal has already made the decision that threat of punishment, and the probability of being caught, are not a deterrent. Whether that decision is made logically, as would certainly be common in England, or irrationally, such as trying to rob a gun store w. a knife, it has been made. By making a decision, such as killing people for their wallets is profitable, he makes other, lesser decisions -- such as entering places where citizens are prohibited from carrying.
You claim that basing an argument based on the Constitution is insufficient. Given your politics, I presume you'd reject similar arguments based on the writings of any of the FF.
However, you wish to restrict the right of man to defend himself -- make your case for such a restriction, realizing that American government is based on the principles of granting rights to the state, not the people.
EG. I do not believe in allowing private citizens, or anyone else for that matter, to own biological weapons. They're only use is to end the world. Using one means everyone aside from your people, dies, and a percentage of your own people die, and you risk that none of your people will. It is not effective as either a means of self-defense, or as a means of resisting tyranny, since no one will be left to be free.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, & our sacred Honor
A gentleman unarmed is undressed.
Collects of 1903/08 Colt Pocket Auto
