I disagree. If you compare an AK47 to a musket, we've already made that sort of leap once. So, if we're going to apply the logic that was created to deal with muskets to AK47s, my question is, where is the line?
Your "phaser" line of argument remains fallacious and filled with error.
Tell me, how much do you know about firearms, actually?
A musket fired a bullet...technically a lead ball. An AK47 fires bullets. While the AK47 is a more advanced weapon in type, it remains essentially the same in character: like the musket, it fires bullets. The destructive power of a bullet is to make a small hole, just like the musket ball.
The flintlock musket was invented in the 1500s...the AK47 in the 20th century. Over 400 years and firearms, though much improved, still fire bullets.
You are postulating that in 50 years some technology for which there is not even a theory ("a [man portable] phaser than can melt a stadium and kill everyone in it in seconds") and using it as an argument against the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Do you see how preposterous this is? In order to have the energy to "melt a stadium", your not-even-hypothetical "phaser" would have to have an energy storage capacity approaching that of a tactical nuclear weapon. There is no reason to believe this will be feasible in 50 years, and it is a stretch to believe it will be feasible in 500 years. Energy density is a tricky thing and not so easily manipulated.
Let the far future deal with this situation IF it ever arises, and let's deal with the present and the near-term future.... which is quite a handful by itself.
It is likely that within our lifetime, guns will continue to fire bullets. They will probably do so more accurately, which is a good thing... accurate shots hit their intended target, not innocent bystanders... and some will fire larger quantities of bullets at higher velocities.
Let's get back to what you actually know about firearms. Do you know there are selective-fire AK47's, and there are semi-auto AK47's? Do you understand those terms? Do you know how the two types are regulated differently under present law?
Are you aware that even a full-auto AK47 is actually not a "machine gun"? It is not something that can very effectively be used to spray bullets "like a garden hose" with any accuracy. If you try it you'll be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn. Have you ever fired automatic weapons before? The usual method, taught by the military because it is the most effective, is to fire short bursts of AIMED fire at a single target, typically in bursts of 2-4 rounds. This gives 2-4 chances to hit the target.
Hosing full-auto around is also known as "spray and pray", because of its ineffectiveness. Recoil results in muzzle-climb and tends to take the stream of bullets off the target quickly unless it is a heavy mounted weapon.
It is not the same as, say an M60 belt-fed LMG.
Many people have an exaggerated idea of the "power" of the AK47. The fact is it is a highly reliable weapon, but uses an intermediate-power cartridge intended for modest range and modest accuracy.
A Remington 700
bolt-action 30-06 is actually a deadlier weapon using a far more powerful cartridge. People don't freak about Rem700's because they don't "look evil". :roll:
I don't have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning AK47's, or AR-15's, M4's or similar weapons. These are not the "weapons of mass destruction" antigunners make them out to be.
If the right to bear arms is to be treated as an absolute right, we need to define exactly what the boundaries of that right are. The alternative is what we're doing now- to allow the legislature and courts to define the boundaries of the rights as we go along. If you're cool with that, then that's all good. If you're not, then you need a clear cut, objective, line where you believe the right to bear arms is limited.
If you want to contend that it is an absolute right which cannot be infringed, you need to define that right in a way that will always be applicable.
I've defined it before on this forum, thus:
1. Any weapon suitable for use in militia service, specifically a weapon defined as a "small arm", suitable for infantry use as a soldier's personal weapon.
2. Any other weapon useable for self-defense, sport, or other lawful purposes.
A weapon capable of "melting a stadium" would probably fall under the headings of support weapons or artillery, if not WMDs, and in any future that I or my kids or grandkids will see would probably not be an infantry small-arm/personal weapon.
The two largest sources of guns used in crimes, by far, are guns which were either legally purchased by the perpetrator and guns which were stolen from somebody who legally purchased them.
The bolded quote is bull.
Firearms as Used in Crime
Annual Criminal Abuse of Firearms Nationally: Less than 0.2% of all firearms, and less than 0.4% of all handguns. More than 99.8% of all guns, and 99.6% of all handguns are NOT used in criminal activity in any given year.(BATF, FBI)
Nationally convictions for 'attempt to purchase' by disqualified individuals under Brady now total 7 since early 1994. There are now in excess of 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws on the books, yet few if any have proven clearly effective in reducing violence or a criminal's access to firearms. Some 93% of firearms used in crime are reported as stolen or come from some other uncontrollable source.(DPS/BCI, US DoJ, BATF)
On to another point:
teamosil said:
If a gun can't be sold legally, the supply of that kind of gun in the US is radically curtailed. Thats why in countries with far stricter gun laws you don't see nearly so many gun related crimes.
In Britain, most beloved of places to admire by gun-control advocates, gun crime increased after draconian gun control was enacted. Violent crime in general is a serious problem in Britain, and a huge subject of debate among Brits. Accusations against the government and police of "cooking down" stats on violent and property crime have been flying for years. Severe curtailment of citizens right to effective self-defense has emboldened criminals, along with wishy-washy punishements for criminals caught.
Britain is an island nation, btw, that never had anywhere near as many guns in private hands as the US does...
it is also a country that even back when there was hardly any gun control, it had less violent crime and less gun crime than many other nations, indicating that cultural factors are also an issue. As mentioned though, violent crime is on the rise and a serious problem there, according to many.
Comparing the US to other nations on this subject is comparing apples and oranges...conditions are too different.
If a gun couldn't be sold legally in the US, it could be smuggled in from other countries just as easily as dope is. The only reason this isn't done more already is because presently there is no need. If you can't keep criminals from getting imported dope, you aren't going to keep criminals from getting illegal guns. By far, gun control laws impact and impair law-abiding citizens by causing them to be less well-armed than the criminals that prey on them.
Certainly, once the guns are out there, we can't get them back. But I'm not proposing making any guns currently legal illegal. I'm just talking about where the line is for you for what sorts of gun not currently legal, or guns not yet invented, where you would say that they are too deadly to be sold to the general population.
When they do not meet the criteria I noted above. I will not address highly-improbable fantasy weapons like handheld "phasers" with the power to "melt a stadium", such arguments are red herrings.
G.