Woods Walker wrote:Flame thrower?? LOL! We're talking about firearms! Hand held firearms used to shoot things with. Not incinerate them or blow them up. Not hand grenades, not bazookas, or RPGs. Firearms. Bullets...NON exploding ones...
Again, we either have the right to keep and bear them, or we don't. IMO once elected officials start deciding what an "arm" is for the sake of what they will "let us have" (which BTW, they have no right to do), then any thought you may have about having any 2A "rights' is a fantasy, because what they define as "reasonable" today will change as they see fit.
The analogy between firearms and other individual or crew served weapons is valid. What is the historical precedent to limiting this to a discussion of firearms with non-exploding ammunition? What about the history of fully automatic weapons? You are smart WW. You know the regulation of arms has evolved through our history. The historical militia has many cases in which private citizens on the frontier owned swivel guns (small cannons). This could easily translate to today's grenade launchers but we both know that our modern understanding of a well regulated militia does not include them.
If you assert that the people have no right to regulate the armament available to private citizens, then you must be prepared to defend that position all the way to the extreme. Or...we can agree that the "well regulated" part of the 2A does allow for the people to make adjustments to the level of firepower a militia member can access.
Oh, and on a side note. The slavery discussion in the thread you referenced was quite valid as well. It demonstrated two key points. One, that the militia has a checkered past. Two, that some on the pro-gun side will defend even the most heinous of injustices if it protects their guns.
You want a crew served weapon? Try a cannon. Perfectly legal to own and even to use. swivel guns, and punt guns? swivel gun is a small cannon and legal, Punt guns are legal to own, but the hunting rules changed, outlawing them for hunting waterfowl. The gun itself is still legal. Gatling gun? legal with permits, true military machine guns? LEGAL with the proper permits(very expensive and require background checks) but LEGAL. Grenade launchers legal. Grenades are not.Why? EXPLODING ORDNANCE, Getting hit by a grenade is not the dangerous part, not much different than being hit by a baseball. it is what is inside that is dangerous. That is what is restricted (explosives) just as dynamite is restricted. And Flame throwers don't even require a permit, but they do cost nearly $9000. ,so I think I will pass.
I can own a fully automatic military machine gun, if I pass the background checks and pony up a lot of money for the permits, and the weapon. I posted a link and story of the machine gun shoot on an other thread, And every one of these guns are in private hands. Are they trying to stop this.....NO, funny thing there, they are going after a gun that is no different than my old .22 Glenfield model #60 on the inside. It operates the same. the rate of fire is the same, I even have 17 rounds before reloading, and not only are they NOT going after mine right now, it is actually written into the propose bans as exempt! (for now)
Problem with this ban of any semi-auto, is it sets the standard for all other bans,and don't be fooled, there will be more. If we allow any semi-auto to be outlawed, we have opened the door for all of them to be outlawed. There is no real difference between the AR-15 and my old rifle besides looks, The AR is most commonly chambered for the .223, but cab also be chambered for the ,22, and the 9 mm (if I remember correctly) It shoots no faster, no farther, and is no more accurate. It is popular because it is very simple to customize and personalize. It is a semi-auto that has been PIMPED.
If they succeed in banning semi'auto as rifles, what's left? pistols are the same action, same chambering, just shorter versions right? While we got 'em, bent over, why not take all semi-auto pistols too? Of course, the gang-banger will give them up too, they will not want to stand out as a throwback right?
The fact is, there is no justification for a ban, that would take away the AR-15 and leave any other semi-auto rifle. This is a gun grab, as it was done in England, one gun at a time, until they were mostly gone. They just had a protest in England with old folks trying to get their gun rights back, (I can get the link to the story if needed).
We can not allow this to happen, we can not allow this to pass. "The AR-15 is adequate for home defense" according to the CIA, (I can get you the article) they seem to like them, as they have a huge order in for them, as HDW's (Home Defense Weapons) for their own use.
I do not have an AR-15. The only semi-auto I have is my Glenfield model#60 .22. I have nothing to lose if this ban goes into place, except my Rights, and the intent of the Second Amendment, which was, and is, to watchdog the Government itself, prevent invasion, and backstop the rest of the Bill of Rights, should the Government turn against us (which is more and more possible as time progresses.)
The Executive Orders that are being used and abused, of late, are part of the War Powers Act. We have been living in a declared state of Emergency since the 60's I believe, I can get the article if needed, there have been several Emergencies, over the years, overlapping, and nearly unending. At least one of these Emergencies is still in effect. And only the President (whoever sits in that seat) can decide when the Emergency is over. Power corrupts. While the War Powers Act is invoked the President can bypass Congress. (Checks and Balances do not exist) This is much more dangerous than an AR-15. If you need to see any of the cited articles, let me know. I will retrieve them. 2A is the most important Amendment there is. Without it, you have no other Rights.
The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.