We’re all going to Heller in a Handbasket
on 03/18/2008 at 12:11 PM
I’m just crossing my fingers for now. The courts have come up with enough strange rulings that I’m not ready to think they’re tipping one way or the other. I’m just hoping that they recognize the phrase “shall not be infringed” in its literal sense, rather than engaging in some rarefied debate about legal theory.
If we win, it will be a major shake up of political and social beliefs. I’d like to think that it would take us in a positive direction, but that’s getting way too far ahead.
Short note on “plastic” guns. I thought everyone knew by now that most of a Glock is steel, not plastic. Is it really possible that a justice of the Supreme Court could be unaware of this?I really wish this whole thing was about plastic guns sneaking by security stations, I think this would be an easy decision (and one that would not have made it to this level). The fact this is being mentioned is out of place here. The issue at hand has nothing to do with this advanced terrorist trick. The issue is, can a person in their own home protect themselves using a firearm, handgun...shotgun...rifle...when their life may be lost. I won’t even get into the conceal carry which is what they really should have banned in the first place, along the reasoning of less guns equals less violence on the street if your an anti-gunner. Pro gunners already know that the crime statistics are not made up of lawful right to carry individuals. I would have to have a pretty good paying job (or other reason) to even consider living in a district that passes a ban on firearms like this, it really is stupid and unconstitutional!
if we get a no it’s water the tree of liberty time! shouldn’t even be up for discussion!!
CAN’T THEY FRICKIN READ!!! [will calm down now]Yes Doc, it’s entirely possible. The judges are people too, and if you are not an active gun owner - one who is familiar with most of the brands, how different guns work, the differences between most of the more common calibers - you may not know Gak about Glock.
But then, it doesn’t say “right to keep and bear firearms made from steel” either. Build a plastic gun that works, or invent a Star Trek phaser, or forge your own ninja sword, or a bow and some arrows. All of them are still arms and are equally protected. Their material is immaterial. So is their size.
Hey, I can be reasonable; I’ll draw the line at strong explosives equal to or greater than the power of a hand grenade. I know it’s actually an infringement, but I’ll bend that far in the interests of the public good. But don’t give me no BS about “armor piercing” bullets, because that’s crap ... because I’ll never know who gets to define what “armor” actually is. Is it at least 14” of fully Harveyized steel? Or is two sheets of aluminum foil enough to qualify?
Damn! This makes me wanna go down to Caswells and try out that Sig Sauer P220! Yeah! .45ACP! And judging from last year’s reaction to the P226 9mm, I’ll probably feel even more testosterone flowing! Frakkin’ A!
Rancino, be careful. I’ve seen flaming barricades and I’ve seen what happened when the riot troops hit them. I won’t say never, but I will say that force of arms is the last resort.
I like Jeff Cooper’s minimum standard for allowable weapons. They must be weapons that an individual can deal with. This draws a line above 20mm antitank weapons, M2’s and mortars but below howitzer’s. The idea isn’t based on what is reasonable to keep in your house or shoot at a burgler, it’s just based on the concept of an individual right to keep and bear arms. If an individual, rather than a crew can deal with it, then it is covered by the 2nd Amendment. Grenades could be another question. They sort of meet the definition of an arm that one person may bear, but it’s very hard to like them. They’re just plain nasty, with no skill or art involved.
The whole concept of armor piercing ammunition being a separate problem is mostly a crock. Bullets penetrate. Try shooting .223 Ball at a 1/4” steel plate at close range. Not only will it cleanly penetrate, it will crater both sides making it difficult to determine which side is entrance and which side is exit. Now think what a .338 Lapua Magnum would do. If you add a steel or tungsten core, yes, it will demonstrate greater penetration, but if you’re hit, I doubt you’d care about the difference. Body armor capable of stopping any sort of rifle round is uncommon, heavy and bulky. Anyone know if even Dragon Skin will stop the .338 Lapua?
Doc, polar bears don’t stop one of those. Silly little body armor isn’t going to even slow it down. 1” steel plate isn’t going to either.
Try and stay cool Rancino. Stress just makes you shoot bigger groups.
ok......i’m calmed now.........must be too much into Jericho i guess.
