The government has effectively put machine guns out of the reach of the average citizen. An end-a-round the Second Amendment. The technological advances in firearms though notable are more in line with convenience and efficiency. There is a day coming when technology will leap far and away from gun powder and the rifled steel barrel. In construction and design many codes allow processes and techniques that would meet the required end result but may not be commonly used. Given that peoples lives and health are at stake in the structures a society deems acceptable as to safety...can Congress constitutionally mandate that only arms of a bygone era be used for self defense? Will the Second Amendment allow/support the bearing of portable lasers for self-defense?
Thanks for the humor Crue. Hear from people who suggest the 2A is only for muskets. Accessory laser sighting systems are already in use and could be that "foot in the door", not unlike how people are prepped for change (in bite-size increments), for the time when the laser is the defensive weapon of the day. "Set phasers for (fun and) stun"
I have a feeling that projection light devices (lasers) would be regulated under the FDA as IR lasers are right now. If not the FDA, then preemptive BATFE regulations before the technology is widely used in weapons which will retard the production and availability to the civilian market. This would probably deny the "common usage" clause of the recent supreme court opinions. As far as seeing this technology in our life times, I doubt it. Gun powder is a lot like gasoline. Hybrid cars are awesome and loud noises, but being able to carry the same amount of energy in a gas can in the form of batteries would be extremely difficult. Being able to carry the same defensive capabilities in a cartridge would be equally difficult for any man portable energy weapon. I will keep buying 9mm and 5.56.
Logical. Well stated. And I can agree...yet, I can't help but think of the Star Trek series, portable phones and computers...today we have computer capability/tv-access/movies/on-line shopping/scanning barcode symbols, etc. on a phone that weighs ounces! Common usage is an interesting concept. Back in the (US Independence-Revolution) day the common soldier and his civilian counterpart carried the same weaponry. I strongly suspect that those who wrote and voted for our federal constitution saw that too. I would firmly suggest that their intention was that the citizen should have access to that which the army infantry soldier commonly carries. When the government tried to put "machine guns" (i.e. Thompson) out of the reach of the People (MAKE it uncommon) it TAXED the right to a machine gun. Easier than repealing the 2A. However today Congress, in my opinion, is shameless with its assault on personal rights and the supremes or at least some of them are enablers of this very treacherous behavior. The "machine gun" was a relatively pricey purchase even without demanding the punitive tax on the Second Amendment. The average annual family income then was somewhere in the 1300-1500 USD range. The government made the total cost to own that machine gun between 400-500.00 USD (about one third of a family's annual income). Yet again the government looked to keep machine guns UNCOMMON by limiting the supply to those manufactured prior to 1986(?). I always wondered why? Just kidding, it is meant to keep these firearms from you by making it more expensive because the government limits the supply of this weapon to itself. Everyone knows you can always and only trust government wisdom. Anyway, I've been told that an automatic rifle will presently cost a police department a few hundred dollars more than a semi-automatic .223. Since there are millions of .223 rifles in American homes I wonder how many of those rifle owners would spend a couple of hundred dollars more for an automatic rifle. If the average American makes between 30,000-50,000 USD annually, the automatic rifle would then cost about 3% to 5% of annual income (not including punitive tax cost). Would that make the machine gun a common usage candidate? How about military usage weren't sawed-off shotguns outlawed by the supremes, in part, because they had no military use? Yet it was a common usage firearm during the trench wars of WWI. Progressives see limitations wherever they look or have authority to influence or dominate. The government has many of these in its ranks and they are supported by the "intellectuals" (those who believe as they do) of the proletariat. Human nature hasn't changed since Adam and Eve's fruit tasting or Cain "hit" on Able. When lasers, whenever that may be, are commonly carried by the soldiers of our military, We the People, who they serve, should be able to carry too. When a tyrannical force comes a knocking it isn't concerned about constitutional or civil rights...ask those whose addresses were incorrectly placed on a warrant. In the short term, A negligent or criminal force, in my opinion, is only repelled by an equal, more determined or greater force. Sometimes criminals and government can be such bullies. I believe the Second Amendment will encompass the hand held laser-gun and the next technology that comes as an arm to keep and bear. Technology will exponentially improve the tools we use (i.e. I-phones). Imagine America as She (if the Constitution is still the law of the Land then) will be in two hundred (a blink of History's eye) years from now!
The Supreme Court was actually going to hear oral arguments in 1936 (I think, probably wrong) about the NFA '34. The only reason the pro-gun side didn't have oral arguments on short barreled shot guns was because of excessively muddy roads causing some sort of mail delay and inability to travel to Washington D.C. The Supreme Court then ruled in favor of the US Government and it has been law ever since. ETA: It was US v. Miller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Lasers with enough energy to kill or burn a hole through a paper target, in a size and weight similar to a modern gun, are far in the future. An aimed projectile is still the best thing going. WWFFD? What would the Founding Fathers Do, or have done if this technology was available in 1789? The Militia Act of 1792 allows Milita members to have cannons if they wanted them. People back then could have even have built and armed their own Ship of the Line if they had enough money---and those were the most sophisticated and expensive war technologies of the day.
So tell us, how many of the founding fathers were inventors and held patents? And you think they didn't know technology would go forward?? And, NO, machine guns ARE NOT out of the reach of the average citizen. I could get my Class C license right now and buy a machine gun if I was so inclined, I just don't have a practical use for one is all.
Very wise fellows. Wrote one of the best, if not the best political document ever, with the intent to protect posterity from the pitfalls of human nature. Why do you believe you should have to get a license to exercise the right to keep and bear an arm? Why is your 2A right subject to a stamp tax? Can you legally purchase an M-16 manufactured yesterday? Rights are not dependent on finding a "practical use" for having that right. Some rights are inherent in our humanity and I just don't believe those rights should be subject to being taxed.
First, the ban has been in effect since before I was born. Second, I was pointing out that the average citizen can get a machine gun, they just have to jump through the Governments hoops. Third, the reason for the ban the Government put in place in 1934 was some gangsters killed some other gangsters in 1929 in what has become known as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre so the Government decided that honest citizens can't own such weapons, come on people, when did this start making sense???? At this point in history the government is trying to get all weapons for the same reasons, some gang bangers are killing each other and they are using this as an excuse confiscate all weapons. And before any of you Na Sayers start in, Obama appointed Dianne Feinstein to write the new firearms bill and she is already on record as to what her real objective is; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRblw29I14U http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=2021524 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein Any questions??
You must be less than 79 years old, junior . Hoop jumping and stamp taxes do not sound like a rights-based process to me. I'd call it a privilege, if the government says yes you may...if the government says no you can't I guess you're just not that average citizen. How come the government can purchase a lot of brand spanking new automatic rifles but you can't purchase one? Is it because the government has credibility and is a known good will organization that always puts others before itself? Doesn't the government always have a reason to diminish personal liberties? Punish the citizen along with the mad and wicked? Sounds like the government sees the citizen, the criminal and the insane as one group of people Personal liberties are the enemy of a government working to impose unjust acts and measures on the People. As one targeted right falls another will come into focus that will have status as the newest, common sense, enemy of the state. Firearms, a conscience, religious rights, private property disposition, protected speech, destroying the family unit and authority (the state allows underage girls medication and procedures without her parents' knowledge or approval) are all in the sights and presently being steam-rolled over by your national benevolent tyrant corps of political elitists.
