TommygunNG
New member
I take it people don't like my ideas at all. Well, since I never claimed to have any power to make them happen, I'm not really hurt. They were fanciful at best, but intended to point out that the Second Amendment is not about preference in people's toys, but about power in a people's hands.
I understand about Heller separating out the preambular/prefactory clause. Immediately upon reading that in the decision in 2008, my thought was of how the more the Court separates the two, the lower the level of arms which will be allowed under the Amendment's right. It is far easier for the government to justify to nine idiots in dresses the idea of taking "military-style" firepower from simple citizens than it is from "militiamen". The court has already made it fairly clear "we the people" aren't getting full-auto or any crew-served items (which opens the way for bans on .50 caliber sniper rifles and such--think about it before arguing). If the court comes to view "assault weapons" as simply the same thing as prohibited arms, junior class, it becomes all the easier for them to uphold a ban.
Of course, we hopefully can win challenges in court through the "common use" standard, as there are simply umpteen millions of the targeted weapons and magazines in private use. That said, it leaves open the way for future, less private arms-friendly courts to permit blocking public access to future advancements in weapons technology, unless there is some link to the militia function. It may be fine for this generation, but it leaves our posterity facing the prospect of being essentially stuck with our level today, while the miilitary state of the art continues to advance. Please pardon the sci-fi reference here, but it conjures up the "Firefly/Serenity" image of regular citizens running around with projectile weapons, while government forces and elites have lasers and whatnot.
Hence, the "resistance to tyranny" argument we hear so much more of lately becomes weaker and weaker the more individualistic the amendment becomes. A bunch of untrained individuals with different agendas, no sense of cooperation, and uncoordinated armament simply could not put up an ultimately victorious resistance. And this reality will grow the more the government's level of weaponry advances, while that of the people remains static. The "resistance" would be nothing more than petty troublemaking and what otherwise would be considered terrorism.
If the only thing a gun owner is concerned about is their own individual/family safety or maybe some element of cultural and heritage preservation, then all of this is fine. Heller and public opinion seem solid with basic home defense arms, and CCW is still popularly accepted. And your pretty six-shooters should survive. So don't be as upset as some people are about the newly-proposed bans. There are alternatives in home defense, and you can adjust your hobby as needed. And a hundred years from now, the same technological level of arms will probably still be about as effective. Or maybe there will be a review of the technological level (as I suggested) and maybe the court will approve, say, stun phasers or some such fancy gizmo. But the link of private arms to the Militia will be gone in all practical terms, so don't expect "Blast" or "Kill" settings on them, while government models have both and a whole lot more. To borrow from another sci-fi universe, "Resistance [will be] futile".
Simply put, then, if you are only being individualist about this, then don't worry too much about the upcoming fight over "assault weapons". After all, you all have your NASCAR to watch and your Evinrudes to tweak. All it boils down for you to is that you might lose a few of your toys (or have to pay $200 each to keep them until forfeiture to the government upon your death). On the other hand, if you look at the whole matter from the higher perspective of what the Founders sought and the welfare of our country now and for our posterity--in other words, the way a patriot would see it--then it should be an issue of extreme importance. For those in the latter group, you will need to decide if the risk of "no compromise" is worth it, compared to the spectre of catastrophic loss of rights.
We shall see.
I understand about Heller separating out the preambular/prefactory clause. Immediately upon reading that in the decision in 2008, my thought was of how the more the Court separates the two, the lower the level of arms which will be allowed under the Amendment's right. It is far easier for the government to justify to nine idiots in dresses the idea of taking "military-style" firepower from simple citizens than it is from "militiamen". The court has already made it fairly clear "we the people" aren't getting full-auto or any crew-served items (which opens the way for bans on .50 caliber sniper rifles and such--think about it before arguing). If the court comes to view "assault weapons" as simply the same thing as prohibited arms, junior class, it becomes all the easier for them to uphold a ban.
Of course, we hopefully can win challenges in court through the "common use" standard, as there are simply umpteen millions of the targeted weapons and magazines in private use. That said, it leaves open the way for future, less private arms-friendly courts to permit blocking public access to future advancements in weapons technology, unless there is some link to the militia function. It may be fine for this generation, but it leaves our posterity facing the prospect of being essentially stuck with our level today, while the miilitary state of the art continues to advance. Please pardon the sci-fi reference here, but it conjures up the "Firefly/Serenity" image of regular citizens running around with projectile weapons, while government forces and elites have lasers and whatnot.
Hence, the "resistance to tyranny" argument we hear so much more of lately becomes weaker and weaker the more individualistic the amendment becomes. A bunch of untrained individuals with different agendas, no sense of cooperation, and uncoordinated armament simply could not put up an ultimately victorious resistance. And this reality will grow the more the government's level of weaponry advances, while that of the people remains static. The "resistance" would be nothing more than petty troublemaking and what otherwise would be considered terrorism.
If the only thing a gun owner is concerned about is their own individual/family safety or maybe some element of cultural and heritage preservation, then all of this is fine. Heller and public opinion seem solid with basic home defense arms, and CCW is still popularly accepted. And your pretty six-shooters should survive. So don't be as upset as some people are about the newly-proposed bans. There are alternatives in home defense, and you can adjust your hobby as needed. And a hundred years from now, the same technological level of arms will probably still be about as effective. Or maybe there will be a review of the technological level (as I suggested) and maybe the court will approve, say, stun phasers or some such fancy gizmo. But the link of private arms to the Militia will be gone in all practical terms, so don't expect "Blast" or "Kill" settings on them, while government models have both and a whole lot more. To borrow from another sci-fi universe, "Resistance [will be] futile".
Simply put, then, if you are only being individualist about this, then don't worry too much about the upcoming fight over "assault weapons". After all, you all have your NASCAR to watch and your Evinrudes to tweak. All it boils down for you to is that you might lose a few of your toys (or have to pay $200 each to keep them until forfeiture to the government upon your death). On the other hand, if you look at the whole matter from the higher perspective of what the Founders sought and the welfare of our country now and for our posterity--in other words, the way a patriot would see it--then it should be an issue of extreme importance. For those in the latter group, you will need to decide if the risk of "no compromise" is worth it, compared to the spectre of catastrophic loss of rights.
We shall see.
