Cameras vs full auto guns

HKP7PSP · August 9, 2002, 12:41 AM

The 1930s court decision said that a sawed off shotgun had no relation to a militia. So if the guy had a Thompson, he would have been ok. But yet, the people's parity with the government is not allowed when that is the entire point.

Imagine if someone said "Our Forefathers would never have given us the freedom of speech if they had known about today's motor-driven cameras."

A camera should not hold more than 10 shots of film, because there is no legitimate use for needing that many before a reload. It must be semi-automatic only. Just the government can be trusted to take many photos with one push of the button.

No high-powered zoom lenses. You might capture something on film from too far away.

No auto-focus, as it is non-sporting.

Any camera more than medium format is not allowed, as it might capture too much detail, and has no real use except for professionals trained in its use.

And you cannot be on TV, the most powerful form of speech, without a license. You might say something that will suddenly affect millions of people. The risk is too great, and our founding fathers had no idea forms of speech this great would exist. Therefore, regular citizens are limited to written and live vocal speech only -- not the kind that can be sprayed out into the airwaves in an uncontrolled way.

Tamara · August 9, 2002, 07:44 AM

Not to mention the internet. Can you imagine what the Founding Fathers would have said if they knew you could type a post on TFL and it could instantly be read by folks from coast to coast and in dozens of foreign countries?

I'm pretty sure they meant the First Amendment to be limited to screw-type presses.

HKP7PSP · August 9, 2002, 11:28 AM

We have to ban screw type presses. The risk of lead poinsoning is too great. If it saves just one child it will be worth it.

August 9, 2002, 12:41 AM	#1
HKP7PSP Senior Member Join Date: December 25, 2001 Location: MA Posts: 169	Cameras vs full auto guns The 1930s court decision said that a sawed off shotgun had no relation to a militia. So if the guy had a Thompson, he would have been ok. But yet, the people's parity with the government is not allowed when that is the entire point. Imagine if someone said "Our Forefathers would never have given us the freedom of speech if they had known about today's motor-driven cameras." A camera should not hold more than 10 shots of film, because there is no legitimate use for needing that many before a reload. It must be semi-automatic only. Just the government can be trusted to take many photos with one push of the button. No high-powered zoom lenses. You might capture something on film from too far away. No auto-focus, as it is non-sporting. Any camera more than medium format is not allowed, as it might capture too much detail, and has no real use except for professionals trained in its use. And you cannot be on TV, the most powerful form of speech, without a license. You might say something that will suddenly affect millions of people. The risk is too great, and our founding fathers had no idea forms of speech this great would exist. Therefore, regular citizens are limited to written and live vocal speech only -- not the kind that can be sprayed out into the airwaves in an uncontrolled way.

August 9, 2002, 07:44 AM	#2
Tamara Moderator Emeritus Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 16,002	Not to mention the internet. Can you imagine what the Founding Fathers would have said if they knew you could type a post on TFL and it could instantly be read by folks from coast to coast and in dozens of foreign countries? I'm pretty sure they meant the First Amendment to be limited to screw-type presses. __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

August 9, 2002, 11:28 AM	#3
HKP7PSP Senior Member Join Date: December 25, 2001 Location: MA Posts: 169	We have to ban screw type presses. The risk of lead poinsoning is too great. If it saves just one child it will be worth it.