The Modern Musket

Some have recently pointed to the modern "assault weapon" - the cosmetically altered semi-auto rifles of today - as being something that was not envisioned by the second amendment. They say that these are modern weapons that are not protected by the second amendment.

Well let's think about it a minute.

What was the state of the art in personal firearms at the time the constitution was written? The musket, a black powder, manually loaded, single shot rifle.

What was the state of the art in a soldier's firearms at the time the constitution was written? The musket, a black powder, manually loaded, single shot rifle.

When the constitution was written, arms meant arms, even those in equal capability and capacity to what the military used at the time of the US Revolution.

Where did America raise its armies from? From the citizens. Where did they get their guns initially? They had them already.

America was armed at the time. Militias and watchmen were local groups of armed citizens. These militias and watchmen became soldiers and fought for our freedom using muskets, the state of the art in personal firearms at the time.

An argument can be made for the legalization of full-auto rifles following that principle. And yet, gun-owners already compromised decades ago and gave that up.

We are not giving up any more of our rights because of someone else's fear. We have made our compromise.

The suggested measures of national registration serves only two purposes: taxation and confiscation. It does absolutely nothing to stop crime.


Copyright 2013, Kevin Farley (a.k.a. sixdrift, a.k.a. neuronstatic)

Register Cars, Register Guns? No.

A comparison was recently made that since cars are licensed and all car owners are registered, that it should not bother people at all that they should be required to be registered and fingerprinted to own certain types of firearms.

I think that is an invalid comparison and I shall explain why.

Cars are not weapons, at least not normally. There are automobile accidents and people do die, but seldom is it murder. Also cars are not referenced in the constitution as a protected right, nor were horses or buggies, being the typical mode of transport at the time.

So if the car comparison is to be used, consider this. What is the main cause of concern for automobile accidents in the news these days? Typically it is drunk driving, or driving while under the influence of some drug.

So now here is my compromise proposition. I can agree to a national database of registered owners of certain types of firearms, if you can agree to a national database of registers consumers of alcohol.

Think about it. A car is not normally a dangerous thing in the hands of a reasonable person. Neither is a firearm. But when a registered car, controlled by a registered, licensed driver is driven while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, it becomes a potentially lethal device. One that often involves accidents, injuries, and deaths.

So let's require all licensed drivers who want to consume alcohol to submit themselves to a national database of people who consume alcohol. They should be required to get an alcohol permit, so they are forced to at least be made aware of the dangers. That way, this national database could be used to look for potential threats on our nation's highways.

Hey, if you want to force normal average citizens to submit to a national database of firearms owners out of fear that one of them, someday, may, under some condition, for some reason, some where, might use a firearm to murder somebody, then everyone who is a licensed driver must apply for an alcohol permit because someday, somewhere, they may drive while intoxicated.

Sound reasonable? Actually, neither of them do and neither will change the outcomes of the actions of people of low moral character or poor conscience.

 

Copyright 2013, Kevin Farley (a.k.a. sixdrift, a.k.a. neuronstatic)