No- not at all. Just build new cars that do not go anywhere near 140 MPH. What is complicated about that?
And I have asked but never got an answer… so I will ask again … why does someone outside of the police or military need with a pistol that can fire 30 shots in seconds and be able to pierce body armor? Can’t the old Dirty Harry hand cannon keep you safe in your home or business without going to this length?
The underlying assumption here seems to be
a- if technology can make it
b- if gun merchants can market it
c- then I can but it
Now just imagine where that takes us fifty years from now.
The ‘dirty harry hand cannon’ can penetrate body armor better than the FN-FiveSeven that you deeply despise, and it can shoot as quickly and be reloaded, all six shots at a time, in under 1 second.
A skilled shooter can shoot as effectively with either one, and an unskilled shooter will shoot as ineffectively with either one.
The only reason you’re comfortable with the dirty harry hand cannon is because it hasn’t been demonized, but there is no effective difference between them! (Edit: If anything, the ‘Dirty Harry hand Cannon’ is a more dangerous firearm than the FN-FiveSeven!)
Bob - and that is why I will not get into the back and forth technical specs discussion as its just a trap for the non-gun loving person who is still a citizen and wants to express their opinion on an important public matter. It will always come down to just what you explained with the Dirty Harry weapon.
Serious question…
is it your position that technology should be able to produce any type of arms it is able to produce and such products should be able to be sold to the non-military and non-police citizenery simply because such things are possible and you claim the right to have such items under the Second Amendment?
If you mean that it’ll come down to reality, and that you want to ban something based on arbitrary superficial characteristics rather than realistic things which actually matter, then yes, it will come down to that.
Because that line of thinking is not only dangerous, but inherently against the spirit of the Constitution of the United States and the founding principles of this nation – that no laws should be arbitrary.
No, my position is that any ban, on anything, should be based in reality and fact, not in fear or emotion.
My position is that there are already restrictions on firearms, that anything larger than a .50 caliber (which, by the way, is a relatively arbitrary definition in itself) requires a ‘destructive device’ license, that ammunition already regulated (no ‘explosive’ projectiles), actions are already regulated (fully automatic and selective fire are banned)… and that any further restrictions should be justified by reality not by emotion or kneejerk reaction.
Bob - do you have such rigid scientific standards for how you cast your own vote for candidates for public office or do you allow your feelings, emotions and just general beliefs to sway who you vote for? Or is it in this one area along in which you apply such stringent rules of measurement and science?
Well if your standard is any gun which holds more than six bullets at a time, then as others have tried to point out, you’re a hundred years too late. Again, as others have tried to point out, the gun used in the Ft. Hood shootings was NOT some sort of recently invented superpistol orders of magnitude deadlier than what’s been around for decades. It’s not. It doesn’t hold more bullets than guns that have been available for nearly a hundred years, and it doesn’t shoot bullets that are deadlier than bullets that have been available for nearly a hundred years. A shooting identical to this shooting could have happened in 1915. Is that non-technical enough?
Now as to your question: if it were possible to build a nuclear-powered raygun with which someone could level half a city before being stopped, then yes it would probably be necessary to ban unauthorized possession of rayguns. (In fact, I don’t see how ANYONE could ever be entrusted with control of such a weapon, military or otherwise.) But it would be necessary to amend the letter of the Second Amendment to allow this.
What in the holy hell are you talking about? Nobody is placing strict rules of measurement on anything. He’s talking about guns that fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger, vs. guns that fire a continuous stream. He’s talking about how big the bullet is. He’s talking about bullets that explode vs. bullets that do not explode.
You sound like my mother attempting to talk about technology in general. She sounds foolish when she likens a word processor to the internet. Go out and educate yourself on the subject. It won’t take longer than 20 or 30 minutes. Nobody here is throwing highly technical terms at you.
allow me to explain my comment… you guys want this all to be about technological specs so you can point out the hypocritical flaws in banning one weapon while allowing others. That is painfully obvious. You want this to be about science and hard and cold facts. While that has a role to play in the discussion, citizens make up their mind all the time about issues and candidates based on all sort of things including their own personal set of beliefs, their own ethics, and how they simply feel about things before them. You do that, i do that, we all do that. I am a citizen and I vote. I am politically active. I have a right to have an opinion about guns even though you may know 1,000 times more than I do about the technical aspects. And I do not think I am alone in that.
The founding fathers gave us the right to keep and bear arms in 1791 with the Second Amendment. Find the outdated and simple weapons they said you could have and place them on one end of the continuum. Now place the glorious advances of weapons technology on the other end of the continuum. There is a wide gulf dividing those two extremes. I think common sense and the greater good of society indicates that there is some area in between those two extremes that you can still bear arms and protect yourself without turning everybody into an armed version of Robocop.
I use rigid, although not scientific, standards to determine who I vote for as it comes to public office.
First, I examine their history, and determine whether or not they’ve delivered on their campaign promises in the past – if they haven’t (depending on why they haven’t), I categorize them as a liar and do not proceed to examine their platform any further.
However, if they have delivered on their promises in the past, in part or in whole, I examine their history of corruption (accused and convicted), typically including their campaign financing, and determine whether they’re trustworthy or not.
If they’re still considered trust worthy, I look at their platform and determine whether or not I think they can deliver on that. If they can, and I agree with their platform, they’ll get my vote.
If no candidates are sufficiently qualified in my opinion (as so few often are), I vote for the ‘lesser of two evils,’ the one who I believe can do the best. But it’s not a matter of feeling, it’s a matter of carefully weighed advantages and disadvantages.
Just like purchasing a house or investing in the stock market, pros and cons must be carefully weighed. Or are you suggesting we should govern a nation based on what “feels good”? Because from what I hear, crack “feels good.”
Nope, I apply stringent rules of measurement and science to just about every part of my life.
You do realize that the constitution doesn’t give you anything, right?
It recognizes pre-existing rights which are inherent in the individuals. The Bill of Rights doesn’t give you the right to free speech, you have the right to free speech, whether it’s in the Constitution or not, the Constitution only recognizes that right, specifically, and implies many others.
How do you think abortion was ruled legal by the Supreme Court? It’s not spelled out in the Constitution, but it’s recognized because the Constitution isn’t a group of rights that you’ve been given, it’s a recognition of rights that are already yours!
We differ about that. If you live in a nation and the government of that nation does not recognize that you have a particular right, you don’t have squat. That may not agree with philosophers pontificating about natural rights, but that is the way it is in the real cold world.
bob - if you go through all that in casting your vote or in deciding your postion on any issue, you are a man above men. You are also a rare version of a unfeeling Mister Spock from STAR TREK. So there is an upside and a downside.
Firearms are a mature technology. The guns we use today work exactly the same way guns from 50 or 75 or 100 years ago worked. The only differences are in manufacturing techniques and materials. 50 years from now, quite likely that will still be the case.
Which is why more and more Unions, confederations, federations, etc are instituting things like the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, to force their members to recognize certain rights that all humans have. It’s specifically spelled out that the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant you those rights, but recognizes them.
Bullshit. We’re trying to point out to you that gun technology hasn’t changed much in 100 years. You keep building strawmen about technical specs & super guns that are hyper-lethal. It’s all horseshit, and we’re trying to get that through to you. Most of us have given up, because you haven’t demonstrated the ability to understand how a pencil works, much less a firearm.
Here’s a tip: No handgun legal in the US will ever be much bigger than good ole Dirty Harry’s gun. No legal gun will ever be able to shoot faster than the time it takes to pull the trigger. Handgun ammunition designed to explode will continue to be illegal.
In short, you’re wrong. About everything you’ve said. Technology isn’t producing some kind of space-aged gun that is capable of ultra-efficient killing.
ps: I know fuck all about technical aspects of guns. I look like such a newb when I have a pistol in my hand that it would make you laugh out loud.
okay - but so what? If you live in a nation, any nation, and you claim you have some “natural right” but the legitimate government of that nation does not recognize that right, you have nothing. There are no “natural rights” to anything. There is only the reality that you have to live in. Natural rights sure did not do millions of slaves any good for hundreds of years now did they?
I fear, Hay, that you are engaged in a futile but noble endeavor. On this issue, I have surrendered. It simply cannot be done.
As a practical fact, we are awash in handguns, they are everywhere. Open a page in the newspaper that shows movie ads, have you ever…ever!..seen such a page without somebody brandishing a handgun?
The damned things don’t rot. It takes years and years for them to wear out, even if frequently used, God forbid. They won’t simply “go away”. And the political will to ban them is utterly beyond our reach, even the suggestion that we consider such a thing sends a significant portion of our population into hysterical shit-fits. We want to rid our country of these things, but we want it in a more or less luke warm fashion, we are opposed with a zeal that borders on the religious, God alone knows why.
With grave reluctance, I say forget it. Save your energy, eloquence and zeal on issues that can be resolved. On this one, the slow painful way…gradually changing our people and our values…is the only way. We have to create a public that simply doesn’t want them, never mind not allowing them.
With grave reluctance, my position is: Fuck it, keep the goddam things if they mean that much to you, muzzle tov, much good may it do you. Your efforts are noble, worthy, but futile. I would that I were wrong, but I’m a pessimist, and I’m not wrong often enough.
elucidator, you aren’t arguing the same thing. Haymarket wants to meet in the middle, not understanding that we’re probably just shy of the middle already. If you want to argue for an outright gun ban, then I can at least understand that position.