[TheForge] Criminal Background Check: way OT

[Andy Gladish]

Yeah, that's an interesting question. However, those clumsy weapons were  
the state-of-the-art assault weapons of the day.
It's been said that if the Indians had had bows like hunters use now, the  
settlers may not have been able to stay here...
And when the plains Indians got pistols that we wouldn't even use for  
personal defense (like, 32 rimfires and such), they threw away their bows  
and used those for buffalo hunting, so it's difficult to compare the role  
of certain weapons in other eras.
When I was a kid, taking a semiauto and shooting up the neighborhood was  
unheard of- now it's just another news item.
All the laws against firearms are really a red herring- the question is,  
why are we using them against unarmed citizens? What's up with our society  
that this stuff happens so much?
Making laws restricting access isn't the same as addressing the causes-  
it's like when someone robs the 7/11, sure you can catch and punish him,  
but sooner or later he or his community have to ask, What is it that he  
thinks he needs so badly that he's willing to hurt others and risk his own  
safety and liberty?
Andy


On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:28:58 -0800, Bruce Freeman <freemab222 at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> Andy,
>
> It's not really the "infringing" part that I mean to question. It's
> the definition of "arms".
>
> In 1776, a musket or rifle was really not that powerful a weapon.  The
> firing rate was perhaps twice a minute, IF someone was guarding you
> while you reloaded.  Without the bayonet, an army of musketmen would
> not have been so effective.
>
> So fast forward to today and we find that "arms"  could include fully
> automatic weapons with any sort of load.  Somehow I don't think that's
> what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
>
> Bruce