Comment by Sandi – December 21, 2012 5:55 p.m.

Right on target, Sandi. Such sarcasm is in stark contrast to the reasoned, unemotional countenance JW and Jack like to portray.

So, if reasonable folk cannot distinguish between a Glock and cruise missile (as Dan & company alleges) how can they possibly fairly differentiate between the firearms various in that smaller class of small arms?”
–Comment by Dave Hicks

Dave, I like AND respect you, but I believe I can state my own views on the 2nd Amendment better than you can. Here they are:

1. The 2nd Amendment refers to not to the right to bear guns, but the right to bear “arms.”

2. The founding fathers deliberately did NOT limit this to “sidearms,” aka guns. They meant all arms, otherwise they would have limited it to sidearms or whatever.

3. In their day, that included muskets, cannons, bayonets, swords and whatever else.

4. Today, the definition is much broader. It includes computer-controlled howitzers, cruise missiles, Abram tanks, rail guns, nuclear bombs and all sorts of other fearsome stuff.

5. The gun-rights crowd draws an arbitrary line over what THEY believe our forefathers meant by “arms.” They believe it was limited to sidearms.

6. Yet, it is very possible to believe, in the day of single-shot muskets and cannons of our forefathers, that they meant the arms commonly available when they enacted the 2nd Amendment.

7. If I say, “they did not mean machine guns, or cruise missiles,” I am drawing an arbitrary line, too, in what they meant. Just like the gun-rights crowd does when they claim the forefathers didn’t meant it to say that you could possess a hydrogen bomb.

8. We a BOTH drawing arbitrary lines as to what the forefathers meant. So neither of us is necessarily in stronger position in terms of the argument.

9. Ergo, my line (if I want to limit 2A rights to revolvers and bolt action rifles) is not in a weaker position than yours.

10. That’s my argument. Now poke holes in it!

That’s a 180 degree misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of what it actually is: Dan calling the bluff of those who purposely want the spectrum of guns-as-arms left as vague as possible. And that’s a truth that take a huge gun-centric blind spot to miss.

Because there’s no denying the lack of the word “guns” in the 2A, there are only two possiblities: either absolutely all arms are legal for individuals, or there’s ongoing necessity to calibrate the status of every arms type. Even most VCDL gun worshippers like Phil van Cleave acknowledge it’s not the former. So the inherent process of arms classification is an ongoing necessity, and the brighter the lines the better the clarity.

The strategy of deliberately leaving guns as vaguely defined a subset of arms as possible does not serve the gun lobby in the long run, but, in fealty to gun manufacturers, the radical post-1977 NRA and its’ allies like the VCDL allow themselves to do nothing else. In which case, and possibly for the best, others are now happy to shoulder the necessary taxonomy, and recognize that .50 caliber sniper rifles, bb guns, Bushmaster semi-automatic rifles, antique muskets and .22 target pistols each have different characteristics that we’re constitutionally required to define and assign for regulation.

So that’s the constitutional duty we’re undertaking anew in 2013, as we’ll be reassigning 2A arms types in the subset “guns” to better reflect contemporary realities. The NRA and VCDL gun worshippers are allowed to demonstrate their acknowledgement that the 2A is not absolute the same way as everyone else, by delineating with as great a degree of specificity where each gun lies in the regulation spectrum. But many others encourage them to continue ignoring the process, and pretending that any 2A ruling, including Heller, gives them some constitutional foundation for treating all guns the same.

Take it up with Dan. He is the one who alleges that 2A covers all arms and that one version of arms differs from another by a continuum of such insignificant changes that reasonable folk cannot not draw any non-arbitrary line between any two — or at least that has been the core of his criticism of NRA, VCDL, etc for only promoting firearms, on a number of occasions. Others here have insisted on echoing that mantra.

So, if reasonable folk cannot distinguish between a Glock and cruise missile (as Dan & company alleges) how can they possibly fairly differentiate between the firearms various in that smaller class of small arms?

After losing a gunfight to drug dealers in 1986, the FBI decided to upgrade from 9mm to 10mm, which was purposefully made for that reason. Police departments followed suit, but after complaining about recoil, the cartridge was shortened and, the .40 S&W was born. The .45 has better stopping power than the 9, .40, or 10, but holds fewer rounds.

It is a matter of preference. I would much rather carry a .45 than a 9. 9mm is underpowered. The military likely uses it because it saves a lot of money for ammunition over the 9.

The Constitution does guarantee a right to bear arms, it does not and never will guarantee a right to bear ANY specific gun.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear

Definition of BEAR
transitive verb
1
a : to move while holding up and supporting (something)
b : to be equipped or furnished with (something)