Quote:
|
In fact, I bet they would love to decide that not all weapons are arms.
|
That would be quite a stretch. For thousands of years, and to this day in some parts of the world, the most common arms are swords, daggers, bows, spears, and the like. Even firearms, being relatively new on the scene, are still old enough to be considered ancient technology.
Since all firearms are dangerous, the real question is what is considered unusual. One of the considerations when deciding what is dangerous and unusual ought to be, that for the right to be effective for it's intended purpose (self-defense, tyranny, foreign invasion, etc), the performance of a firearm must be up to the task.
NO foreign invader or tyrannical government is going to play fair in deciding what to arm themselves with. For the right to have any contemporary meaning, the arms must be sufficient to intimidate and repel the offender.
Whenever I hear the question, "What does anyone need an assault weapon for?", usually followed by "it's only intended purpose is to kill people." I don't know whether to slap myself on the forehead, laugh, or cry.
At some point, the courts are going to have to directly answer the question with another one: What primary purpose SHOULD a gun have, that was designed for self defense, resisting tyranny, or repelling a foreign invader?
And then: What capabilities must such a weapon possess?
The unpleasant reality is, of course, that all guns that are used in self-defense, repelling a foreign invader, of resisting a tyrannical government must necessarily have the primary purpose of killing. There's just no getting around the fact.
The government already being at an astronomical technological advantage, has no business broadening that chasm with magazine limitations, ammo restrictions, carry prohibitions, and one gun a month schemes.