What Happens the Day Bullets Become Irrelevant?

At some point in the not too distant future, firearms which do not require conventional kinetic ammunition may appear on the scene. Future "guns" might not even use conventional bullets or any kind of gunpowder style projectiles whatsoever.
I don't wish to engage in painting pseudo-scientific scenarios that describe what a futuristic firearm might be like, although I certainly invite others to do so if they have informed opinions on the subject. I just consider it to be beyond my limitations or pay grade. Smarter people than myself who are more experienced may have a lot to say on the concept.

I just have a gut feeling that bullets may very well become a thing of the past in the near future. The very concept of "FIRE" in firearms may become as outmoded as horses on a horseless carriage.

So...what then? Is a gun still a gun if it emits a high powered particle beam of some kind instead of a bullet?
And is it covered by the Second Amendment?

Go ahead and laugh if you think I am ruminating on the notion of the Second Amendment not applying to Star Trek style "phasers" or "disruptor" weapons, but the point I am making might not actually be all that far fetched, and even if it is right now, it might not be someday in our lifetime.
Therefore, it's a worthwhile question.

Notwithstanding gun-control supporters’ complaints about the supposed new-fangledness of this or that firearm or firearm accessory, firearms are glorified slingshots.Three thousand years ago, David slew Goliath with a rock ballistically comparable to a .45 caliber pistol bullet. Gunpowder propels a bullet more predictably than a whirling leather thong, but bullets, like rocks, are inert projectiles.
Sometime this century, the government will be equipped with offensive and defensive handheld arms and even more futuristic arms that will render firearms as obsolete for defense against tyranny as bows and arrows are today.

Click to expand...

How The Supreme Court Already Repealed The Second Amendment

Checkerboard Strangler said:

At some point in the not too distant future, firearms which do not require conventional kinetic ammunition may appear on the scene. Future "guns" might not even use conventional bullets or any kind of gunpowder style projectiles whatsoever.
I don't wish to engage in painting pseudo-scientific scenarios that describe what a futuristic firearm might be like, although I certainly invite others to do so if they have informed opinions on the subject. I just consider it to be beyond my limitations or pay grade. Smarter people than myself who are more experienced may have a lot to say on the concept.

I just have a gut feeling that bullets may very well become a thing of the past in the near future. The very concept of "FIRE" in firearms may become as outmoded as horses on a horseless carriage.

So...what then? Is a gun still a gun if it emits a high powered particle beam of some kind instead of a bullet?
And is it covered by the Second Amendment?

Go ahead and laugh if you think I am ruminating on the notion of the Second Amendment not applying to Star Trek style "phasers" or "disruptor" weapons, but the point I am making might not actually be all that far fetched, and even if it is right now, it might not be someday in our lifetime.
Therefore, it's a worthwhile question.




How The Supreme Court Already Repealed The Second Amendment

Click to expand...

I don't care what form the arms take, as long as the Second Amendment preserves my right to keep and bear one. :coffeepap:

Captain Adverse said:

I don't care what form the arms take, as long as the Second Amendment preserves my right to keep and bear one. :coffeepap:

Click to expand...

That isn't the question.
I asked "WILL the Second Amendment apply to firearms that do not use bullets?"
We already KNOW that a lot of people are saying "as long as" but the question is, what is the definition of a GUN when it no longer uses a firing hammer, no longer uses gunpowder, no longer uses bullets and no longer detonates any kind of explosive charge to thrust a kinetic load of metal at a target?

Can a gun be also defined as simply any device that you point at someone and squeeze a firing button?

Is THIS a gun??



Is THIS a gun??

Checkerboard Strangler said:

That isn't the question.
I asked "WILL the Second Amendment apply to firearms that do not use bullets?"
We already KNOW that a lot of people are saying "as long as" but the question is, what is the definition of a GUN when it no longer uses a firing hammer, no longer uses gunpowder, no longer uses bullets and no longer detonates any kind of explosive charge to thrust a kinetic load of metal at a target?

Can a gun be also defined as simply any device that you point at someone and squeeze a firing button?

Is THIS a gun??

Is THIS a gun??

Click to expand...

The second amendment does not say "guns," it says "arms." :roll:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Click to expand...

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

To arm: to furnish or equip with weapons

Click to expand...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arms

I responded appropriately...because even though the weapons you talk about are not guns, if they end up replacing guns and bullets...they are still arms and people will seek them for self defense.

Captain Adverse said:

The second amendment does not say "guns," it says "arms." :roll:

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arms

I responded appropriately...because even though the weapons you talk about are not guns, if they end up replacing guns and bullets...they are still arms and people will seek them for self defense.

Click to expand...

What did you think of Mark Overstreet's comments on Heller or his musings on Scalia?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

That isn't the question.
I asked "WILL the Second Amendment apply to firearms that do not use bullets?"
We already KNOW that a lot of people are saying "as long as" but the question is, what is the definition of a GUN when it no longer uses a firing hammer, no longer uses gunpowder, no longer uses bullets and no longer detonates any kind of explosive charge to thrust a kinetic load of metal at a target?

Can a gun be also defined as simply any device that you point at someone and squeeze a firing button?

Is THIS a gun??

Is THIS a gun??

Click to expand...

My favorite line from "No Country"; "Step out of the car please sir".

jet57 said:

My favorite line from "No Country"; "Step out of the car please sir".

Click to expand...

Well Cappy Adversity does make a sound point, they DID SAY "arms", not "fire - arms" and not "guns"....just arms, as in "armament".
But now we're in the 21st century, a place as foreign to the minds of the founders as Captain Kirk's 24th century is to us.

And we have rulings like Heller.
This guy Overstreet seems to think Heller placed limitations on what defines "arms", am I correct?

Say for instance a type of gun is developed that can continuously fire electrified particle loads for as long as the battery pack holds up, and you happen to be carrying a 160 watt-hour battery that you purloined off the back of your professional television camera.


Typical output profiles for one of those puppies is:

[FONT=&quot]3hrs. @50watts [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4.5hrs. @35watts [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6.25hrs. @25watts

[/FONT]Okay, so let's assume that in order to fire a lethal load, the "gun" requires AT LEAST 200 watts, so now we're looking at a continuous firing time of 45 minutes.

Massage the figures all you like, I'm just trying to imagine how that plays out in society.

I have wondered about this before. I certainly think they would be covered by the 2nd Amendment. But what happens when the technology is so perfected that both kill and stun settings work. At that point would society allow the banning of lethal weapons if the stun weapons are effective?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

That isn't the question.
I asked "WILL the Second Amendment apply to firearms that do not use bullets?"
We already KNOW that a lot of people are saying "as long as" but the question is, what is the definition of a GUN when it no longer uses a firing hammer, no longer uses gunpowder, no longer uses bullets and no longer detonates any kind of explosive charge to thrust a kinetic load of metal at a target?

Can a gun be also defined as simply any device that you point at someone and squeeze a firing button?

Is THIS a gun??

Is THIS a gun??

Click to expand...

if the police have it-its in common use

Skeptic Bob said:

I have wondered about this before. I certainly think they would be covered by the 2nd Amendment. But what happens when the technology is so perfected that both kill and stun settings work. At that point would society allow the banning of lethal weapons if the stun weapons are effective?

Click to expand...

Depends on who you're asking.
Ask a criminal what they think of the stun settings. They could walk into a room, stun 20 or 30 people, steal everything they have and maybe even stab them before he leaves. It's easy to think of futuristic guns as "smart guns" until you play out the scenario while pretending to be deranged crook.

The advent of these future guns might create as many problems as they solve, or even more.
Do we require that a future gun have 3G or WiFi capability so that the authorities are notified any time it gets discharged?
Do we ban all battery packs EXCEPT for "gun certified" units which are limited to a set number of discharges per charge cycle?
Do we limit the number of charge cycles per day?
Do we require that the guns disable themselves in certain GPS locations, or in the presence of transponders belonging to law enforcement?

I think I'm already feeling a headache coming on, LOL.

Oh and of course, as you can imagine, the crooks will pay no attention whatsoever to things like GPS awareness, discharge squawkers, battery pack limitations.
They'll all have hacked guns, with the squawkers disabled, and they'll use drill batteries wired into the electronics and they'll defeat any limitations on the number of discharges allowed.
And of course, they'll certainly have the old school guns, which use bullets.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

At some point in the not too distant future, firearms which do not require conventional kinetic ammunition may appear on the scene. Future "guns" might not even use conventional bullets or any kind of gunpowder style projectiles whatsoever.
I don't wish to engage in painting pseudo-scientific scenarios that describe what a futuristic firearm might be like, although I certainly invite others to do so if they have informed opinions on the subject. I just consider it to be beyond my limitations or pay grade. Smarter people than myself who are more experienced may have a lot to say on the concept.

I just have a gut feeling that bullets may very well become a thing of the past in the near future. The very concept of "FIRE" in firearms may become as outmoded as horses on a horseless carriage.

So...what then? Is a gun still a gun if it emits a high powered particle beam of some kind instead of a bullet?
And is it covered by the Second Amendment?

Go ahead and laugh if you think I am ruminating on the notion of the Second Amendment not applying to Star Trek style "phasers" or "disruptor" weapons, but the point I am making might not actually be all that far fetched, and even if it is right now, it might not be someday in our lifetime.
Therefore, it's a worthwhile question.




How The Supreme Court Already Repealed The Second Amendment

Click to expand...

That's exactly what we're doing. :lamo

Checkerboard Strangler said:

At some point in the not too distant future, firearms which do not require conventional kinetic ammunition may appear on the scene. Future "guns" might not even use conventional bullets or any kind of gunpowder style projectiles whatsoever.

Click to expand...

At some point in the future, yes. Not too distant? Not taking any bets.

I just have a gut feeling that bullets may very well become a thing of the past in the near future. The very concept of "FIRE" in firearms may become as outmoded as horses on a horseless carriage.

Click to expand...

Well, anything is possible. When I was a boy back in the 50's, we talked about how "ray-guns" would replace our bullet-firing guns. Hasn't happened yet, and I am still waiting. Since then, we have seen high-powered lasers (although I haven't yet heard of a practical laser sidearm that has achieved a similar level of price/lethality as a straightforward semiautomatic Glock). Other technologies are also being researched. I am sure it will happen, but I doubt it will be commercially available in my lifetime, or even in my kids' lifetimes.

I hope I am wrong. I would love to buy one of these widgets!

dogboy49 said:

At some point in the future, yes. Not too distant? Not taking any bets.



Well, anything is possible. When I was a boy back in the 50's, we talked about how "ray-guns" would replace our bullet-firing guns. Hasn't happened yet, and I am still waiting. Since then, we have seen high-powered lasers (although I haven't yet heard of a practical laser sidearm that has achieved a similar level of price/lethality as a straightforward semiautomatic Glock). Other technologies are also being researched. I am sure it will happen, but I doubt it will be commercially available in my lifetime, or even in my kids' lifetimes.

I hope I am wrong. I would love to buy one of these widgets!

Click to expand...

I want a light saber. even though I have two of the best Katanas ever forged (Mike Bell and Howard Clark) I figure a light saber would be the way to go

Checkerboard Strangler said:

At some point in the not too distant future, firearms which do not require conventional kinetic ammunition may appear on the scene. Future "guns" might not even use conventional bullets or any kind of gunpowder style projectiles whatsoever.
I don't wish to engage in painting pseudo-scientific scenarios that describe what a futuristic firearm might be like, although I certainly invite others to do so if they have informed opinions on the subject. I just consider it to be beyond my limitations or pay grade. Smarter people than myself who are more experienced may have a lot to say on the concept.

I just have a gut feeling that bullets may very well become a thing of the past in the near future. The very concept of "FIRE" in firearms may become as outmoded as horses on a horseless carriage.

So...what then? Is a gun still a gun if it emits a high powered particle beam of some kind instead of a bullet?
And is it covered by the Second Amendment?

Go ahead and laugh if you think I am ruminating on the notion of the Second Amendment not applying to Star Trek style "phasers" or "disruptor" weapons, but the point I am making might not actually be all that far fetched, and even if it is right now, it might not be someday in our lifetime.
Therefore, it's a worthwhile question.




How The Supreme Court Already Repealed The Second Amendment

Click to expand...

Are you saying laser guns could be a thing of the future? If you are than I would have to agree and as it is we already do have "laser guns" although the ones we've got are way too big to carry around. We've got laser cannons on ships and airplanes that are used to shoot down missiles and possibly aircraft as well. As for having a "laser gun" the size of a small arm, I suppose that will become a reality in the not too distant future as you suggest. It would be interesting to train with such a gun, a laser gun will have no recoil.

As for bullets becoming a thing of the past, I think that even if "laser guns" or "ray guns" as they might be called become common bullets will not become a thing of the past. People will still use guns that shoot bullets just as today you will find people that like to shoot powder and ball muskets. People still sometimes even use and carry knives as weapons and the knife is far older than even the earliest guns. Some tools just don't die out.

As for such laser guns or ray guns falling under the second amendment, if they're weapons that a standard soldier would use than yes they should fall under the second amendment and be available to the common citizen. After all, that's what the second amendment is all about, our forefathers knew that weapons would get more advanced with time and that's why today the second amendment doesn't just cover muskets, it covers modern guns as well and will continue to do so when modern guns no longer shoot bullets.

Skeptic Bob said:

I have wondered about this before. I certainly think they would be covered by the 2nd Amendment. But what happens when the technology is so perfected that both kill and stun settings work. At that point would society allow the banning of lethal weapons if the stun weapons are effective?

Click to expand...

No because sometimes you will need the kill setting no matter how effective the stun setting is.

They already to have "stun" weapons today such as tasers.

DebateChallenge said:

No because sometimes you will need the kill setting no matter how effective the stun setting is.

They already to have "stun" weapons today such as tasers.

Click to expand...

well in some states, there was once an affirmative defense in the common law to a charge of murder which was called "he just needed killin"

TurtleDude said:

well in some states, there was once an affirmative defense in the common law to a charge of murder which was called "he just needed killin"

Click to expand...

Lets say a bad guy is wearing some kind of body armor that can withstand the stun setting and can only be penetrated with the kill setting? If a weapon does have stun and kill settings the kill setting should only be used as a last resort but there might be some situations that would call for it.

Also, any weapon that can stun can kill. There are such things as "less lethal weapons" but there is no such thing as a completely "non lethal weapon." They do make weapons such as tasers, beanbag rounds, rubber bullets, ect that are only meant to stop a person without killing them but the fact of the matter is any of those weapons can kill. Although the vast majority of the time they will stop somebody without killing them there are instances in which such weapons do result in the death of the person they're used against.