Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Poll: Should the NFA be Repealed?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1309226" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>I think the only legitimate role for force or government is to protect liberty. Therefore, the first question I ask when it comes to the legitimacy of arms control laws, before I consider any Constitutional issues, is whether the simple possession of the item in question, without any further safeguards, constitutes a violation of someone's liberty. If the answer is no, it doesn't even matter whether the law would pass Constitutional muster or not... it is an illegitimate exercise of power, and an infringement on the rightful liberty of individuals.</p><p></p><p>I am open to the possibility that there may be a type of weapon in existence, the mere uncontrolled possession of which is such a great risk to others that it constitutes a violation of their liberty... but I would draw that line closer to N/B/C weapons or very powerful conventional explosives, rather than any kind of small arms. It certainly doesn't make any sense to draw the line so that small arms that load automatically and fire a single projectile with one mechanical function are legal, but small arms that load automatically and fire multiple projectiles with one mechanical function are restricted. There is not much difference between the two in lethality, at least with the modern state of firearms. Single well-placed shots are generally more effective than fully automatic fire. The main use for fully automatic fire is suppressive fire, which doesn't have much of a use outside of the battlefield. Burst fire can increase kill potential on a target in close range shooting, but this doesn't make the weapon so much more dangerous as to justify placing it in a different category altogether from semi-automatic weapons, and certainly not in a different category from shotguns, which fire multiple projectiles AT THE SAME TIME with a single mechanical function.</p><p></p><p>One thing that WOULD constitute a threat to people's liberty would be a government that severely outmatches its' citizens' ability to resist it by force if necessary.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1309226, member: 4235"] I think the only legitimate role for force or government is to protect liberty. Therefore, the first question I ask when it comes to the legitimacy of arms control laws, before I consider any Constitutional issues, is whether the simple possession of the item in question, without any further safeguards, constitutes a violation of someone's liberty. If the answer is no, it doesn't even matter whether the law would pass Constitutional muster or not... it is an illegitimate exercise of power, and an infringement on the rightful liberty of individuals. I am open to the possibility that there may be a type of weapon in existence, the mere uncontrolled possession of which is such a great risk to others that it constitutes a violation of their liberty... but I would draw that line closer to N/B/C weapons or very powerful conventional explosives, rather than any kind of small arms. It certainly doesn't make any sense to draw the line so that small arms that load automatically and fire a single projectile with one mechanical function are legal, but small arms that load automatically and fire multiple projectiles with one mechanical function are restricted. There is not much difference between the two in lethality, at least with the modern state of firearms. Single well-placed shots are generally more effective than fully automatic fire. The main use for fully automatic fire is suppressive fire, which doesn't have much of a use outside of the battlefield. Burst fire can increase kill potential on a target in close range shooting, but this doesn't make the weapon so much more dangerous as to justify placing it in a different category altogether from semi-automatic weapons, and certainly not in a different category from shotguns, which fire multiple projectiles AT THE SAME TIME with a single mechanical function. One thing that WOULD constitute a threat to people's liberty would be a government that severely outmatches its' citizens' ability to resist it by force if necessary. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Poll: Should the NFA be Repealed?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom