Problem is that if not now, eventually the majority will agree with him, on things like gun control.
So it makes more sense to stick with logic as to what things like federal gun control laws would eventually do.
The argument against federal gun control is the basis for what a democratic republic actually is and how it has to work, not just mob rule or emotional appeal.
The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written during a time when man had was equal to his weapons. All sides could be equally armed because most could afford the weapons of the time in the Americas just to survive even without a Tyrant. It was a different time. If we look at the English Bill of Rights, it was written similar (hence the word arms instead of guns or firearms) in the 1600s when only the kings could afford the weapons of war. And then we go back to the Magna Carta in the 1200s which also covers the same thing and only kings could afford weapons of war. The 2nd amendment was nothing new even when it was penned. But for the first time, the common person could afford and had to have the weapons that could be used in war just to live day to day. The weapons finally equaled man.
Then about 1851, things started to change. There was an unrest in America. War was coming. Firearms inventors went into high gear. By the time Ft. Sumpter happened there was some real nasty weapons off the drawing boards and into testing. And tactics began to change in the use of Artillery Barrages. In 1871, the first gun controls went into affect in western cities and towns. By the time the Spanish American War came about, the weapons of war had outpaced mans humanity to man by a huge manner. By the time WWI came about for the US, the first half of the 2nd amendment was essentially worthless. And by 1871 and 1934, the last half was drastically changed. The weapons outgrew mans humanity to man.
I don't see your logic.
You seem to correctly realize that it was the low cost and ease of use of firearms that ended monarchies and allow the shift to democratic republics from 1600 to 1851.
But I do not see why you think anything has changed in the need for all households to have military grade weapons?
Your assertion that by 1871, gun control went into effect in western cities and towns is incorrect. It was only cowboys who came into town to drink and gamble who have to temporarily turn in their weapons. And they were given their weapons back when they were ready to leave. Nor were any of the local residents ever disarmed.
And your assertion that any modern advancement in weapons changed the need for a population with military grade weapons I totally disagree with. It is true weapons are slightly more powerful now, but only very slightly, and even if they were vastly more powerful, that would make no difference, as then average citizens would still need the equalizer as well.
Otherwise you no longer have a democratic republic, but a return to the strong man having the monopoly on arms and power.
Go back and reconsider the blunderbuss of the 1600s, and it can kill a dozen people with one shot.
A pair of 1850 percussion revolvers can easily kill a dozen people quickly.
WWI shotguns could easily kill far more people, more quickly than a modern AR.
I think you are over estimating the lethality of modern ARs.
And I don't see how the lethality matters.
No matter how much weapons advance, average people had still better have them as well, or else the criminals will win.
The police not only can never stop crime or be there in time, but police themselves are a corruption of the concept of a democratic republic, and are almost as much of a risk as criminals are.
And yet you have brought up nothing that says I am wrong. You just took a bunch of things, threw them at the wall hoping at least one or two would stick. A Monkey does that at the Zoo when people walk by.
You brought up the AR. I generalized. But let's use the AR. The most recent shooting at a Walmart (Okay, doing a shooting at a walmart may have crossed many of our minds but sanity sets in quickly), what was the weapon of choice? The news never said the AR directly but I think the term "Military Style" came up more than once. That usually means the AR. That same weapon keeps coming up when you look at the high body counts in the shootings. It turns a normal shooting into a mass murder situation quickly. The AR was invented for war and a high body count. It wasn't invented to shoot a varmint unless that varmint is wearing black pajamas. Just because it can be used to open a can of beer doesn't make it a can opener. The 1934 National Firearms Act was about weapons that were being used that outgrew society. And yes, the Mob is still part of Society whether you like it or not. When the Cops and the Mobsters got into a shootout with those weapons you honestly think that civilians were unaffected by the overspray from both sides? If the Cops were forced to have to use automatic weapons on a daily basis because the bad guys all used automatic weapons the deaths of innocent people would be completely off the charts and mind numbing instead of infrequent and shocking.
Common sense gun regulations help to protect us from not only the criminal but the cops and ourselves. While it won't stop the crimes or the accidental deaths, it at least helps keep the frequency and the body counts down. If that's the only outcome then it's better than the alternative where it's a freaking free for all with high frequencies and high body counts and we aren't safe to even leave our newly installed safe rooms in our houses. Sorry, this is America and we should NEVER have to live like that.
Sorry, I still did not get your point.
I do not believe firearms have changed significantly, nor would it matter if they have increased in lethality by a factor of 100.
As for lethality, I pointed out that by the Civil War, one had sufficient firearm lethality to commit the current mass murders. That is not what changed. They just did not do mass murders then as much as now. Has nothing to do with the weapons.
And ARs are not particularly lethal. They actually are far weaker than most rifles, like the .308 winchester. And if being weaker makes them more lethal at close range due to rapid fire, the M-1 carbine had the same rate of fire, recoil, and energy as a modern AR, in WWII. In my opinion, the changes are pretty insignificant.
In my opinion, weapons not only have not outgrown society, society has become weak and defenseless, making it far too susceptible. A century ago, all homes had the obligatory shotgun over the hearth. Being unarmed now is not an improvement, but an inability to deal responsibly with anything. Which is why police now are doing too much, and becoming trigger happy.
Gun control can never prevent criminals from getting machine guns. They are cheap, easy to make, impossible to stop from being smuggled and sold. So why is it there are not shoot outs between gangsters with machineguns, and police? Because there is nothing in it for anyone. No one attacks police at all, much less with machineguns. And that is not because of gun control, that is because police do not carry large sums of money. There is nothing in it for criminals.
So it is false to believe that gun control is necessary or that it works. No one is shooting at police, and there is no way to stop people from getting any weapon they may think they want to commit a crime with. Gun control only harms honest people.
Okay, let's look at the flaws in the M-1 which the modern semi auto was founded on. Case in point, the Mini-14. Okay, you just emptied your mag out and it locked to the rear. You need both hands to get the spent mag out. One to hit the release and the other to rotate the mag in a forward arc until it releases. Yes, I know a person that can do it one handed but He's a Beast and not normal in any way. Now, you drop your spent mag, get another mag out of your carrier, pack, belt or whatever, put it into the opening and then rock it backward until it clicks. Now you have to use a hand to release the bolt release which slams the bolt forward. It was a work of art in 1917. But most of the gun was still conventional and used for hunting by millions of people all across the globe. There were no other real improvements in the M-1 outside of semi auto function. And in 1917, the age of the Automatics had already come and the M-1 Semi Auto setting was less accurate than the Bolt Action versions by the same manufacturer. And it was damned expensive until it became war surplus. But even as war surplus, it wasn't as big a leap as the regular hunting rifles already available at less cost to the civilian community. No big thing. It borrowed heavily from the design and function of civilian rifles.
Now, let's look at the AR. Not one ounce of that rifle borrowed from a civilian rifle in design or function. Not one ounce of cosmetics as used. It's all function with only one thing in mind. How can an 18 year old kid with minimum training, scared out of his mind, pumped up with adrenaline, faced with a large enemy force, do as much combat damage as possible in a short a time as possible. The AR meets that requirement 100%. If you have never been in a firefight, you won't understand. There is nothing pretty about an AR. Everything about it is for a reason. And not one ounce of it is so you can go out and shoot a varmint with it unless that varmint is wearing Black Pajamas. And it's just as deadly in it's semi auto mode as it used to be in it's full auto mode.
The AR is just right. The reason it's a 556 and not a 7.62 is that the 308 size would be too large and heavy, require a longer barrel, bigger mags, be twice the weight and new recruits would find it a real handful to handle. I will admit, the 556 is a bit weak and the 6.8 is going to be a better round but the problem is, the 556 does the job. And just doing the job in war means a whole hell of a lot more than doing a bang up job MOST of the time when you can get it.
You see, I look at it from a Military point of view. To me it's a tool of war. A Model 700 BDL can be used (and has been) as a tool of war. And in an invasion of this country, there are going to end up being more kills by guns like the Model 700 than the AR. You let a battle hardened well equipped Enemy get close enough for you to shoot at him with your AR, you are dead. Now, sit off a quarter of a mile or more you have a much better survival rate. He will be much better with his version of an AR than you will be with yours.
Now, there is the other weapons that the 1934 National Firearms Act covers and other acts cover. Grenades, explosive rockets, mines, and more. If those were available openly to the public, can you imagine trying to just run down to the corner 7-11 for a smoothie? Welcome to Afghanistan. We have enough fruitcakes that use the most potent weapon of war at their disposal today. We don't need to be adding to their arsenals.
Sorry, I disagree.
I prefer and think the M-1 carbine is vastly superior to the AR.
I think the AR is one of the worst rifles ever built.
It is incredibly inferior in every way.
First of all, instead of a piston, the AR uses "direct impingement", which means a tiny stainless steel tube ported off the front of the barrel, and going all the way back to the bolt carrier. This always gets clogged up, can not be cleaned, and is not adjustable for temperature or ammunition load. Its awful. The only other rifles I know that use direct impingement, the Ljungman, Hakim, and Maas, also do not work well due to these same problems, jamming and fouling.
Then there is the 8 lug bolt. That is just stupid. If there is dirt in any locking lug, it won't work, so you want to minimize lugs. Many rifles and pistols, like the FN FAL, only have 1 large locking ramp. The 8 lug, rotating bolt of the AR is just works very badly.
Then there is the separate cocking lever on the AR. While it mean there is no live lever moving back and forth with the bolt, it does not work because you need a live lever once the rifle gets dirty or hot and the bolt is not seating perfectly. So on the AR, they had to add a side cocking assist push button, and machine in a whole bunch of awful notches in the bolt. Ridiculous. All other rifles just use a live cocking bolt handle instead.
ARs are also famous for lots of plastic, like the foregrip, which always easily break.
Then there is the light weight and aluminum, which is bad in my opinion, because is does not absorb recoil as much, wears out very fast, and does not allow a steady shot.
Then there is the straight back design of the stock. While that means the gun does not climb as much with each shot, it means more felt recoil, so causes the need for the delicate stock damper, and means you don't get to sight down the barrel, but instead have the elevated sight that catches on everything.
Etc.
I could go on, but my point is that the AR is not superior or more deadly, but was just a marketing ploy
The popularity was because it became inexpensive due to the surplus market.
So in reality, the Assault weapons ban is just trying to make inexpensive firearms illegal.
It is as undemocratic as you can get, trying to only allow the wealthy to have arms.
Then there are grenades, explosive rockets, mines, and more. And the reality is those ARE available openly to the public, and always will be. Yet there is no problem, and never will be. I can go buy dynamite whenever I want. I have done that several times already, to remove stumps. I can make explosives out of fertilizer and powdered aluminum. I can buy tannerite as much as I want. But there has never been any problem. In fact, after WWI, they were selling surplus Thompson Machineguns for $27 mail order, and it was only Prohibition that caused a problem. Most people were not interested. So there is no problem and these laws improved nothing. All they did was to insult the whole idea of a democratic republic.
Sure there are fruitcakes that should not have any weapons at all, much less good weapons. But they then also should not have a vehicle, flammable, poisons, or many other things as well. And the only way to make them safe is by reversing what Reagan did in 1986, and put these dangerous people back into institutions. You don't try to make the world nerf safe, instead you make the real world safe by supervising the whacko individuals. Any and all gun control is inherently illegal, unproductive, and totally corrupt, in a democratic republic.
