The special degree of destructive potential which one form of firearm may present in the hands of the commoner is not to detract from the immense destructive potential inherent in any firearm that is accessible to mere civilians. Simply because one type of weapon (such as a Type 95 Automatic Rifle) may be obscenely dangerous in the hands of a non State-actor, does not in any way serve to justify the possession of other forms of weaponry by the ordinary subject. It is the weapons that are the most available that will (by default) prove the most deadly.
On the subject of an "Assault Weapons" Ban, and a pragmatic, approach to the progressive removal of such from civilian hands:
The primary goal is to restrict the features that actually contribute to the inherent lethality of a firearm, such as a larger capacity detachable magazine or (already restricted) genuine machineguns. Although the main goal is to simply reduce the damage that a single armed civilian may cause, the opportunity presents itself to extend the prohibition to encompass the most amount of firearms that is politically feasible. Therefore instead of merely banning magazines it is possible under certain political conditions to extend a prohibition to include other features which are not inherently dangerous such as collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, and pistol and thumb-hole grips in order for the ban to affect the maximum amount of firearms possible.
A better alternative is to ban, not simply features, but all weapons which fire semiautomatically, due to the fact that most Americans know nothing about firearms, and therefore don't have a clue what "semiautomatic" means (they are usually under the impression that such devices are a form of machinegun) the prohibition could be extended to weapons such as this:
http://www.tfsa.co.uk/norinco%20takedown.JPG
Such a ban on semiautomatics would also serve to prohibit most pistols in the U.S. as gun-nut favorites such as the M1911, Glocks, and Berettas, would be banned along with about 70-80 percent of all handguns. Revolvers would remain, although such could conceivably be prohibited if they are double action (and therefore will fire without being cocked until the cylinder is emptied) and such would make most handgun ownership illegal within the United States.
As stated previously, I don't necessarily believe that "assault weapons" are especially dangerous in the hands of the ordinary civilian when compared to the obscene lethality that any firearm presents in the hands of the rabblement. However it cannot be denied that due to the ignorance of the general public, a ban on the possession of semiautomatics by mere civilians, and the progressive expansion of such, would garner more community support (due to public ignorance) than a simple and effective ban (or licencing requirement) affecting handguns.
As there is substantial public sentiment for the regulation of "assault weapons" (a mandate to "do something about those black and scary machinegun lookalikes") prohibitions on such can be freely discussed and enacted without fear of any serious political repercussion. Due to the public's ignorance on the meaning of "semiautomatic", "assault weapon" or "military style semiautomatic" the opportunity presents itself for such terms may be applied to many varieties of firearms, in order to catch as many weapons under one ban as possible. My example of a semiautomatic gun (a North Industries copy of a western design) serves as an example of how one law regulating or prohibiting semiautomatic weapons may serve to disarm as many subjects as possible.
That is the goal. Military Style semiautomatics are simply a step in the right direction.
But oh deary do--the Supreme Court specifically ruled handguns as protected by the Second Amendment. I've seen reports of Justice Scalia discussing new cases that will appear soon. Your side's going to have a lot more settled law to deal with in short order.
It should be interesting to note that Justice Scalia's majority opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller vacated his usual originalist viewpoint, and instead interpreted "rights" guaranteed by the Second Amendment in (what he perceived as) the context of the modern day. This was a largely politically (as opposed to historically) motivated decision.
As the opinion given in District of Columbia v. Heller is strictly a contextual interpretation of United States v. Miller, I believe that Miller can be interpreted to endow a collective State "Militia" with all arms within U.S. borders, (although it has been chosen to interpret this section to bear a different context) and therefore sanction all weapons on U.S. soil as some form of State property, to be appropriated for official use by non-individual entities.
You have absolutely no right to control or proliferate any form of weapon. However the State, bears the compelling duty to disarm it's subjects, and such persons who are subject to the rule of law do however implicitly possess a right to be disarmed. The fundamental Right to Civilian Disarmament can be derived fro the language in the preamble (of the U.S. Constitution) sanctioning as the duty of Government to "ensure domestic tranquility", "promote the general welfare", "provide for the common defense". As there exists such a Right to Disarmament of the mere citizen as expressed by the constitution, congress bears the responsibility to adopt prohibitive statutes concerning the proliferation and possession by mere civilians, who do not convey public authority, are not entrusted with the safety of the populace, and not endowed with coercive power (therefore requiring the use of arms) over other subjects.
I look at that chart and reminisce of the "good old days" when one only had to ward off a bunch of young punks who might be packing a switchblade or a .25 acp (like a Raven or a Phoenix) among them. Now those in my ahem, industry must routinely combat hordes of Narco-terrorists armed with AR-15s illegally converted with a drop in sear, with a sawn-off 45-70 or a Jati-matic stuffed down their trousers. We are losing the arms race, having long ago traded the tried and true .38 cal Model 10s for Beretta 92Fs and Mossberg 500s, and finally for Glock 18s and (c3 permit) SCARs. The graph is entirely inaccurate from my Street standpoint, with most of the weapons that we encounter being REAL assault rifles of eastern European or Chinese origin, along with the occasional hand grenade or RPG. So rather than disarming the good people of America, why doesn't any of the current politicians try to fix the broken government police, who are too corrupt and frightened to stop the flow of these weapons, and instead leaves us to protect society from the results of their dereliction of duty.
The special degree of destructive potential which one form of firearm may present in the hands of the commoner is not to detract from the immense destructive potential inherent in any firearm that is accessible to mere civilians. Simply because one type of weapon (such as a Type 95 Automatic Rifle) may be obscenely dangerous in the hands of a non State-actor, does not in any way serve to justify the possession of other forms of weaponry by the ordinary subject. It is the weapons that are the most available that will (by default) prove the most deadly.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of an "Assault Weapons" Ban, and a pragmatic, approach to the progressive removal of such from civilian hands:
The primary goal is to restrict the features that actually contribute to the inherent lethality of a firearm, such as a larger capacity detachable magazine or (already restricted) genuine machineguns. Although the main goal is to simply reduce the damage that a single armed civilian may cause, the opportunity presents itself to extend the prohibition to encompass the most amount of firearms that is politically feasible. Therefore instead of merely banning magazines it is possible under certain political conditions to extend a prohibition to include other features which are not inherently dangerous such as collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, and pistol and thumb-hole grips in order for the ban to affect the maximum amount of firearms possible.
A better alternative is to ban, not simply features, but all weapons which fire semiautomatically, due to the fact that most Americans know nothing about firearms, and therefore don't have a clue what "semiautomatic" means (they are usually under the impression that such devices are a form of machinegun) the prohibition could be extended to weapons such as this:
http://www.tfsa.co.uk/norinco%20takedown.JPG
Such a ban on semiautomatics would also serve to prohibit most pistols in the U.S. as gun-nut favorites such as the M1911, Glocks, and Berettas, would be banned along with about 70-80 percent of all handguns. Revolvers would remain, although such could conceivably be prohibited if they are double action (and therefore will fire without being cocked until the cylinder is emptied) and such would make most handgun ownership illegal within the United States.
As stated previously, I don't necessarily believe that "assault weapons" are especially dangerous in the hands of the ordinary civilian when compared to the obscene lethality that any firearm presents in the hands of the rabblement. However it cannot be denied that due to the ignorance of the general public, a ban on the possession of semiautomatics by mere civilians, and the progressive expansion of such, would garner more community support (due to public ignorance) than a simple and effective ban (or licencing requirement) affecting handguns.
As there is substantial public sentiment for the regulation of "assault weapons" (a mandate to "do something about those black and scary machinegun lookalikes") prohibitions on such can be freely discussed and enacted without fear of any serious political repercussion. Due to the public's ignorance on the meaning of "semiautomatic", "assault weapon" or "military style semiautomatic" the opportunity presents itself for such terms may be applied to many varieties of firearms, in order to catch as many weapons under one ban as possible. My example of a semiautomatic gun (a North Industries copy of a western design) serves as an example of how one law regulating or prohibiting semiautomatic weapons may serve to disarm as many subjects as possible.
That is the goal. Military Style semiautomatics are simply a step in the right direction.
But oh deary do--the Supreme Court specifically ruled handguns as protected by the Second Amendment. I've seen reports of Justice Scalia discussing new cases that will appear soon. Your side's going to have a lot more settled law to deal with in short order.
ReplyDeleteIt should be interesting to note that Justice Scalia's majority opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller vacated his usual originalist viewpoint, and instead interpreted "rights" guaranteed by the Second Amendment in (what he perceived as) the context of the modern day. This was a largely politically (as opposed to historically) motivated decision.
DeleteAs the opinion given in District of Columbia v. Heller is strictly a contextual interpretation of United States v. Miller, I believe that Miller can be interpreted to endow a collective State "Militia" with all arms within U.S. borders, (although it has been chosen to interpret this section to bear a different context) and therefore sanction all weapons on U.S. soil as some form of State property, to be appropriated for official use by non-individual entities.
You have absolutely no right to control or proliferate any form of weapon. However the State, bears the compelling duty to disarm it's subjects, and such persons who are subject to the rule of law do however implicitly possess a right to be disarmed. The fundamental Right to Civilian Disarmament can be derived fro the language in the preamble (of the U.S. Constitution) sanctioning as the duty of Government to "ensure domestic tranquility", "promote the general welfare", "provide for the common defense". As there exists such a Right to Disarmament of the mere citizen as expressed by the constitution, congress bears the responsibility to adopt prohibitive statutes concerning the proliferation and possession by mere civilians, who do not convey public authority, are not entrusted with the safety of the populace, and not endowed with coercive power (therefore requiring the use of arms) over other subjects.
Yeah, "settled law." That's a good one.
DeleteI'm sure you have a point. Please share it.
ReplyDeleteMy point is in the title of the post.
DeleteShall I, then, ask the glaringly obvious question?
DeleteHandgun availability is the main problem. Proper gun control, as I've outlined it, is the solution.
DeleteFeatures that contribute to the lethality? bahahahahahahahaha....
ReplyDeleteDid not the government argue, in the Miller case, that the standard for weapons held by Citizens had to be military used? (yup)
I look at that chart and reminisce of the "good old days" when one only had to ward off a bunch of young punks who might be packing a switchblade or a .25 acp (like a Raven or a Phoenix) among them. Now those in my ahem, industry must routinely combat hordes of Narco-terrorists armed with AR-15s illegally converted with a drop in sear, with a sawn-off 45-70 or a Jati-matic stuffed down their trousers. We are losing the arms race, having long ago traded the tried and true .38 cal Model 10s for Beretta 92Fs and Mossberg 500s, and finally for Glock 18s and (c3 permit) SCARs. The graph is entirely inaccurate from my Street standpoint, with most of the weapons that we encounter being REAL assault rifles of eastern European or Chinese origin, along with the occasional hand grenade or RPG. So rather than disarming the good people of America, why doesn't any of the current politicians try to fix the broken government police, who are too corrupt and frightened to stop the flow of these weapons, and instead leaves us to protect society from the results of their dereliction of duty.
ReplyDeleteGecko45 returns.
Delete