Cultural heritage, unless you forsee fighting a lot of plate mail armored opponents. 
Oh good, so itās not just me.
I found some really cool ones that made it somewhat difficult to chooseā¦
4 Likes
Also known as āpeople you can kill with impunity as long as you can say you thought they might be carrying a gun.ā
6 Likes
1 Like
That middle one has a nice mix of utilitarian and design aesthetic.
1 Like
It does.
The wooden one isnāt at all practical, but itās handsomely crafted.
2 Likes
No, I agree the solution to crime and violence is not ālets add gunsā.
The solution to crime and violence is quality education, universal access to healthcare; including mental health, an environment without heavy metal contamination, social supports including food and housing security for all peoples, the end to the war on drugs, an abundance of good job opportunities and other social changes that are more nuanced.
And I want all of those changes (and more, Universal Basic Income! Treatment for addiction that is available and free of charge to the people seeking help!). And IF those changes were implemented tomorrow there would still be a period of years or decades as the society becomes more stable. And in that time, people who are at risk of being attacked should have the ability to protect themselves. The modern handgun is a solution that is relatively inexpensive, and therefore available to the economically disadvantaged. It does not take a long time or great physical strength, dexterity or endurance to learn or use. The gun works well against opponents that grossly outweigh the people attacked. The gun can work against multiple attackers where other techniques and devices fail.
And I grant itās misuse can be awful. But worse is when those attacking have guns and those being attacked donāt. See the Deacons for Defense and Justice. Multiple times in the history of the South armed black communities were able to repel armed bigots. With the rise of people emboldened by demagogues to police bathrooms on their own, with the potential of police forces being used to round up Hispanic and Muslims for deportation or worse, I want the people threatened to be able to bear arms lawfully, because the criminals and hatemongers already have theirs.
Or as a compromise, Iāll gladly accept any any all gun control that you equally apply to the police (While observing posse comitatus, we donāt want the army to become the police).
1 Like
Sorry but Iād rather have a cleaned up police force with guns than you. They have the power of law and some training, unlike Joe Neighbor who just went down to the gun store and is going to accidentally shoot me.
2 Likes
Let me know when you move out here to California.
Welcome, time traveller from the dawn of the industrial age!
Iām afraid Iāve got some bad news about how those theories about handguns turned out.
9 Likes
I still think these discussions are kind of interesting. For instance, they specifically say āto keep and bear Armsā which means itās okay to carry them around. Yet there are all kinds of restrictions infringing on that, despite the fact that itās clearly a guaranteed right.
People get worked up over concealed vs open carry. Concealed or not doesnāt matter if youāre just carrying it. Yet there are all kinds of restrictions infringing on it.
If someone actually uses a weapon, thatās a completely different act; thatās outside the scope of the 2nd amendment, at that point you go to laws about assault and/or self-defense and such. At that point, itās probably not concealed anyway.
And of course, it says āArmsā, not āgunsā. That could include anything that could be used as a weapon, if such thing were being considered as a weapon or potential weapon. Yet it is only ever discussed as relating to guns.
I find it interesting that so many people can get so worked up about, and have so many different interpretations of, one simple sentence.
If a computer and the internet are covered by āFreedom of the Press,ā as are digital cameras, how is a modern semiautomatic rifle not covered by āArms?ā the technology of both has far outstripped the technology of the times. I would agree that the Constitution was written to protect todayās semi-automatic rifle as it protected the musket and rifle of the time. And possibly the Gauss and laser rifles of the future.
Arms are weapons carried and used by individuals. Swords, daggers, muskets, rifles, and pistols are all āarms.ā As opposed to cannon, rocket launchers, mortars, catapults, and, Iād argue, grenades and fully automatic weapons or machine guns. The semi-automatic firearm fires one shot per trigger pull. Just like a revolver does. The semi-automatic firearm can be fired accurately about as quickly as a manually operated firearm.
In the case of explosive weapons, even those carried and used by an individual, there is a clear safety hazard to the public in storage and use. The automatic repetition of a machine gun (even a little one that a person could carry) Iād also argue has a outsize danger to the public and calls for greater restriction then āarmsā and the Constitution defines them. Further i believe that universal background checks, registration and a system to disarm those who have become ineligible to keep firearms, safe storage laws (like California has) and a requirement to be licensed (through a standard course of study and proficiency that is applicable to all eligible applicants) to carry arms in public are all reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment.
This case said that it is not an undue restraint if the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) for the jurisdiction exercises their unaccountable judgement to determine who gets a concealed carry permit or not. I disagree, because the law should apply equally. As a person spends 1/3 to 2/3rds of their life outside the home, the right to keep arms is not complete without the right to bear them.
2 Likes
And there has been some pretty sharp debate on that front as well. But the digital age press is far closer to the traditional press than a modern gun is to a musket loader, Iād argue. And far less deadly, to boot. [quote=āDragonbait1, post:78, topic:79444ā]
because the law should apply equally
[/quote]
That would be a lovely world. Itās too bad we donāt live in it.
4 Likes
Right???
2 Likes
Hello, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. So I suppose that makes me āJoe Neighborā. Except that I havenāt accidentally shot anything, and I take safety precautions not to accidentally shoot anything. Neither have I shot anything that lives and I donāt intend to, except possibly in the face of great bodily harm. Iād say, āDonāt worry, the other Californian gun owners I know take the same precautions and feel the same way about not wanting to kill as I do.ā But I doubt youād believe me.
If your firearm required training and a license, I would be more reassured. The fact that anyone can just buy a gun and then use it how they see fit, doesnāt relieve me.
And before you paint me as someone who knows nothing about firearms, I learned to shoot at age six and was given my first firearm for my seventh birthday. I grew up in gun culture with hunter family.
2 Likes
Warren v. District of Columbia
The standing army which is said to take the place of the necessity of militias and private arms ownership, is illegal.
lol you have way to much faith in police officers when it comes to firearms skills, the level of training and ability it takes to pass the firearms tests to remain āqualifiedā is abhorrently low in nearly all cases.
ETA:
You do have to take and pass a written test and safe handling demonstration to purchase a handgun in California. Rifles now also require a test, not sure if they have the same safe handling demo requirement.
3 Likes
Thereās significant evidence that Madison wrote it to ensure that southern militias would be able to put down slave revolts.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114
4 Likes
