|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 11, 2009, 02:23 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Defining Dangerous and Unusual
The phrase 'dangerous and unusual weapons' ought to be interpreted as weapons that aren't small arms. Dangerous and unusual means grenades, mortars, RPG's. etc. on up the dangerous scale.
Here's why I think this to be true. Dangerous and unusual cannot generally include small arms, because in reality, any one of them is nearly as dangerous as the next. A head shot from almost any small arm, in almost any caliber, is predictably lethal. Hit a major artery with a .22 long rifle and it's a life threatening matter. For the distinction 'dangerous and unusual weapons' to be meaningful, the threshold for dangerous and unusual must rise significantly above the basic level of danger present in any small arm. We don't need to classify our handguns, pistols, and shotguns beyond the category of small arms. One possible exception could be F/A, although I'm not convinced that F/A small arms ought not be covered under some set of criteria. In other words allowable, but with a higher degree of training, etc. |
May 11, 2009, 07:06 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Even a Blank gun can kill. Actor Brandon Lee, the son of Bruce Lee, unfortunately lost his life to a blank gun. So does dangerous and unusual cover handguns that aren't supposed to fire a projectile?
Just playing devil's advocate here.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
May 11, 2009, 08:58 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
I think it is clear that things like rpg's, bombs, and grenades etc. Are dangerous and unusual.
I think the line will be drawn soemwhere around machine guns. I think everything up to them will not be considered D/U but which side of the line machine guns fall on is open for debate. |
May 11, 2009, 10:16 AM | #4 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Where machineguns fall may be up for debate as an intellectual exercise or a debate on what the Founders would have wanted; but as a practical political matter, I think there is a strong likelihood machineguns are going to be classified as dangerous and unusual weapons.
For one, the Second as an individual right was only a 5-4 decision. I don't see any Justices going for machineguns as protected by the Second Amendment right now. Two, Gura recently suggested that if he had advanced that argument in Heller or tried to tiptoe around it, he would have lost 9-0. Gura strikes me as a sharp guy and if his assessment is that there is nobody on the Court who would support deregulation of machineguns, that is something to keep in mind. Realistically, machineguns are way down the list right now. Gura is rightly targeting cosmetic bans and carry issues right now and gaining some ground there will be a huge advantage for later fights. |
May 11, 2009, 10:29 AM | #5 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
Last edited by johnwilliamson062; May 11, 2009 at 06:42 PM. |
|
May 11, 2009, 10:49 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Want to parse that?
Do you mean that supporters of the 2nd Amend. will be satisfied if only they could keep pump shotguns? I thought that line was O/U shotguns and bolt action rifles. BTW, in Switzerland (our ideal paradise - there is a move against pump shotguns). I think most of us think the bright line is full auto. That will be a hard barrier to break. The best might be to allow new ones to be purchased under the current system. However, the risk is that someone will buy one cheaply (as new manufacture) and go VT or Columbine and the blowback will be a superharse AWB.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 11, 2009, 12:23 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
I think Maestro's point about what counts as dangerous is well taken. It's the interpretation of "unusual" that seems, if anything, more promising to me, especially in light of the way all those so-called "assault weapons" have been flying off the shelves lately. There were a lot out there before, now there are even more out there, so how, exactly, does anyone make the case that they should be banned as "unusual?" And pump shotguns must be about as "unusual" as F150's...
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
May 11, 2009, 12:32 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
If we are to get full auto at all, I think we may need to propose/accept some conditions that satisfies or offsets concerns about how dangerous and unusual they may be. I'm just thinking here, but perhaps we ought to be prepared to acknowledge, that, yes, F/A does rise to the top of the permissible list in terms of performance, and may require a higher level of scrutiny as to who is not disqualified from keeping them, how they are stored, what level of training and background check may be required, but that banning them totally, so that no-one can have them under ANY circumstances, falls outside of 2A, because it eliminates their use for the security purpose of the amendment. (Which Nordyke re-invigorated in dicta) Last edited by maestro pistolero; May 11, 2009 at 01:24 PM. |
|
May 11, 2009, 12:39 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Lancaster Co, PA
Posts: 2,311
|
Full auto is only unusual because it's been so restricted for so long and AR/AK type rifles weren't as common prior to the '86 ban.
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws--that's insane!" - Penn Jillette |
May 11, 2009, 01:31 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
I agree with Glenn and would draw the "bright line" at full auto. My reasoning is that FA was designed purely for military use for fire suppression and area denial. Neither of which is suitable or appropriate for civilian self defense.
I concede problems with the use of words like; "lethal" "dangerous" and such when perhaps efficacy (very high rate of fire for FA) would be better. I do see also the anti's point about large capacity magazines. I do not favor banning them but I see the point the anti's make about them again because of efficacy. In my mind and opinion the most we can go without a lot of regulation is the AR/AK types with high capacity magazines which are very good for self defense.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
May 11, 2009, 01:39 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
One could easily argue the F/A is unnecessary in any typical civilian self defense situation, but the argument falls apart if extended to the purposes of repelling a foreign invader, or other scenarios pertaining to the security if the (free) state.
Foreign invaders would almost certainly not concern themselves with an F/A ban, putting the citizenry at a disadvantage. The purpose and effectieness of 2A, in that scenario, would have been undermined by an outright F/A ban. |
May 11, 2009, 02:53 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Lancaster Co, PA
Posts: 2,311
|
Quote:
Further, it's not only military. LE and security/executive protection makes use of select fire or at very least insist they have the option on what they carry. Why? Multiple hits on target fast bring down attackers faster, and when in tight situtations you want them down IMMEDIATELY. Note the ads for Thompsons in the 20's and early 30's: they were marketed for guarding banks, railroad cars, and ranches (the latter against wolves!), hardly what I'd call paramilitary use. Lastly, a core purpose of the 2nd Amendment is parity. You want military/LE/feds to have an edge over the civilian population? I for one don't. The entire point is to prevent a government going Castro-esque and the only thing that keeps them from doing so is how difficult it is made for them to do so. We should want that to be as absolutely difficult as possible. The political conditions we see now make it crystal clear just how much separation we need from it.
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws--that's insane!" - Penn Jillette Last edited by Yellowfin; May 11, 2009 at 02:58 PM. |
|
May 11, 2009, 03:21 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
I have a tater cannon w/a rifled barrel.
Is that dangerous or unusual? |
May 11, 2009, 03:28 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I hear if you use frangible potatoes, you can make potato chips with that thing.
A delicious and unusual weapon. |
May 11, 2009, 06:06 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Location: Chiloquin, OR
Posts: 217
|
Dangerous or Unusual
Those (2) words can describe many of the users on this forum.
__________________
The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams |
May 11, 2009, 06:27 PM | #16 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The parity you speak of for the 2A was for the states to arm their miltias as a balance to any standing army. It was not to simply arm Joe Sixpack individually. The edge I have over the military and LE is the rule of law, the courts and elected officials. My possession of FA will not matter while those are in place and if those things are not. See my statement about TEOTWAWKI scenarios which rank alongside martian invasion.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|||
May 11, 2009, 06:47 PM | #17 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
'Guys, it can't happen here. The US is special. It is better than any country and Americans are better than any people in history.' -Tennessee Gentleman
BTW, I made some grammatical corrections on my previous post. Maybe it will make more sense now. |
May 11, 2009, 07:52 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
May 11, 2009, 08:25 PM | #19 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This thread started as a rim shot. Could have actually made a good discussion. However, when we start going into TEOTWAWKI territory, I draw the line.
Closed. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|