Originally Posted by mcbear
We do have the same kinds of arms that were available then. Simple handguns and one click at a time rifles and shotguns. They look much different, they load different but they are still the same "side arms". And their function in society has really not changed. Back in the 1770s there were trading days and the most traded item was guns. Guys had several if they could afford them [no 12 car garages at that time].
Most of my friends are on the Left on most issues and seem somewhat flummoxed that I don't follow lockstep. I fully understand the positions. I also know that there is a tremendous amount of disinformation that is stirred about, both by the NRA [which I think is very overreaching] and the Brady gang [which I think reaches just as far the other way].
If, as example you took ALL the weapons that the Brady folks think are REALLY BAD and the NRA thinks you ABSOLUTELY NEED to go hunting [the AK-47 clones, AR-15/M-16, UZI/Mac9 and clones] and melted them today, you MIGHT lose 1-2% of all firearms. Maybe. Now you are down to Rifles [hunting, target, other] Shotguns [Hunting, Street Sweepers, other] and handguns [pistols and revolvers].
Of all the remaining guns, there is Federal paperwork on over 80% of those guns as they were bought at normal gunshops. This is, in essence the registered gun control laws that are wanted by many. The other 20% are sold either private or at gunshows [dealers at gunshows STILL have to do the forms and waiting periods etc]. There are already possession and carry laws that cover every state, Federal Laws that address modifying weapons, automatic weapons and stolen weapons. We even have laws about using firearms in a crime!
So, what else is necessary? What measures should be taken so that the .1% of gun owners are addressed without further overregulating the already law abiding 99.9%? And would further laws actually increase compliance on that .1%?
Either the words in the second ammendment had a specific meaning then, and a context, or they don't. I believe they had a specific meaning and the context was of a smaller government and no standing army, where the citizens would be called up to be the first responders to a threat. And the arms they would bring to bear were the same arms they used to hunt with, or in some areas, defend themselves against the Indians they pissed off when they stole their land. But, in any case the inventory of arms the citizens were expected to bring to their militia was stuff designed and built specifically for their use, in times of general peace.
In the era when the US government grew to the point where they funded a standing army, and began to develop their war fighting armnament of the types that did not rely on technology, manufacturing plants or even materials used for the range of domestically used arms, meaning the guns you described earlier, the context began to become invalid. For example, no one got drafted to serve in WWII era or later and was asked to bring their rifle or sidearm from home with them. Yet, weapons technology developed for these specific military uses is now claimed to be included in the "right to bear arms." If that is a line of logic that sells, so must be the logic that American citizens, under the second ammendment have the right to bear any and all arms available to the military, if they can afford them, including nukes and missiles.
I think the ammendment needs to be rewritten to reflect changes in the nation's government, population and the state of technology. As written the words are too easily twisted to work up regular Americans to support unreasonable positions on the subject of controlling weapons by those with an incentive. An open debate with reasoned result is all I look for, not this perpetual misrepresentation of the second ammendment's intent to justify the uncontrolled manufacture and distribution of weapons to the general public.
As for controlling the last 0.1%, that needs to be a role the weapons manufacturers are saddled with that includes liability for loss of inventory that gets into the hands of the evil 0.1%. If there is nothing to gain and only a big liability, the availability of that stuff will diminish quickly.