Same answer.
Except we aren’t seeing that en masse either are we?
So it’s like banning 4g from phones (a feature). And now Apple/Samsung are only releasing 3g. Where do you get your 4g?
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree re: seller’s willingness to go to prison
The automatic weapons ban was pushed partly because before 1934 you could send a check in the mail and get a BAR or Tommy Gun shipped right to your door.
Organized crime bought their guns legally. Bonnie and Clyde used cut down BARs during bank heists to devastating effect. Your average street thug probably could never get access to those expensive weapons, only career criminals. For those of you who don’t know a BAR is a full auto 30-06 with a 20 round detachable box magazine. Easily twice as powerful as the weapons used in Vegas.
Considering that is the binding contract between the people and the state and is the law of the land by which all other laws are justified, I think it goes a bit beyond just “you and I”.
It’s quite simple. The idea that they did recognize that certain weapons were used for certain things. They also probably recognized that they were also used by certain people. Not just anyone would own a warship or cannon.
You are suggesting that they regulated and prohibited the purchasing of ships and cannon? No, they didn’t. You are going to have to provide me evidence. If you could afford it, you could buy it.
Given NYC’s stop and frisk, asset seizure, no knock warrants, and how many young people suddenly have an issue with free speech, I don’t know how much people in general value these rights.
Again, I’m simply commenting on Shapiro’s argument which I find flawed.
Actually merchant ships HAD to have cannons. Pirates and brigands were a real thing. So yes merchant ships would have some light guns to dissuade pirates.
Still the law of the land.
I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m suggesting that they didn’t look at a musket and a cannon as being no different.
There is still a difference between a merchant ship and warship. Why do they have different names?
That has nothing to do with my point.
Legally, they absolutely did not differentiate. There was no prohibition of either and both were deemed protected by the 2nd amendment, despite the fact that cannons are powerful military weapons which can’t be used either for hunting or personal defense. If you are suggesting that they thought about them differently, ok, I guess you are arguing politicians today should think about different weapons differently. How that affects the 2nd and regulation you’re going to have to clue me in on.
It has everything to do with your claim that we can ignore what they thought about and put down in the second amendment like we do about their opinion on slavery.
I was referring to things (bump stocks, drugs, fully automatic rifles), not actions (drinking & driving). I suppose you could say we banned drunk driving. I think that’s an odd way to look at it considering you can have a beer and drive, i.e. we made it a crime to drive past a certain point (impairment), but it’s not worth arguing.
At any rate, what do the stats say, are drunk driving related deaths down? Is this directly correlated to the law? I have no idea.
Ya, I don’t agree. I don’t think people avoid child porn because it’s illegal. I think people find it abhorrent on its face and are disgusted by it. The law just makes having it a punishable offense, which I’m 1,000% thankful for.
Same with sexual abuse, I don’t think people aren’t abusing children sexually just because it’s against the law…
That’s fine, but it’s just your opinion.
Most laws are about “banning” actions not an inanimate object. We’ve banned “murder” for some time now. Is murder down because it’s against the law? I highly doubt that. We have banned certain drugs and it’s done very little to reduce drug usage. We’ve made it very difficult to impossible to own some firearms and people just use different ones or something else entirely (a car, bomb, plane, etc…).
My overall point being, when people want something enough they find a way to get it.
Well, ya, in this case, because the supreme law of the land pretty clearly states firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right.
Because of the law changing or something else?
Not really because we don’t see a lot of crimes committed with rifles, generally. The point; however, was there are workarounds in this case.
Well, that’s a totally different concept, but if it’s like every other thing in history Al Capone will start GangstaMobile and provide 4g for those that want it.
Legal sellers will stop. Criminal sellers will start. If we magically made cocaine legal you’d start buying it in a pharmacy as opposed to from a dealer on the street.
Quite literally, purchasing/selling a cannon, or a crate of military muskets, or a sack of potatoes were all the same thing as far and the government of the founders was concerned.
The most powerful weapons of the day were naval cannons. Private citizens (merchants) owned naval cannons.
The difference between a merchant ship and a warship at the time was what it was doing. Most frigates and sloops were indistinguishable from merchant vessels of the day. The only truly customized warships were ships of the line which the US had none of at the time.
The US government even hired privateers to harass the British Navy and seize British ships. Not only did they condone private citizens owning dangerous arms, they hired citizens to use them.
The government still hires US based mercs to this day.
https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html
That isn’t my point. They differentiated as far as purpose. You even admit as much. Therefore, if they differentiated based on purpose it might follow that they would differentiate based on technology, time and place.
To a Founder, someone owning a cannon on his plantation might not have compared equally to someone in a modern city like NYC owning an M2 or grenade launcher in his apartment. I’m not saying what they would have thought only that we can’t assume they would have thought one way or another.
I think when people make these assumptions they sell the Founders short. I believe they were smart enough to recognize that the world changes.
Ya, during times of war they were virtually the same thing:
There you said it, “the difference.” My point is that Shapiro says there was no difference. It might seem like a minor point but Shapiro bases his arguments on these little details. That is, he has no problem picking apart other people’s arguments in that fashion.
Making weed “less illegal” (ie, med but not rec) still provided a massive boost to the supply and demand.
And you think EVERY member that lost their 4g would opt into Al Capone’s new illegal 4g plan? Because that’s what would have to happen for “making X illegal is worthless” to hold up.
Do you genuinely believe if we made cocaine illegal we’d see 0 net gain users? Because that’s not the case with literally every state that’s touched weed so far.