Buddhabman
SILVER ELITE
Hunting and subsistence was the primary use of guns. Now's its not
An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America
- Thread starter Wez
- Start date
Bruddah IZ
DA
What babble.
Buddhabman
SILVER ELITE
Not an analyst Bruddah, just a soccer pop. - Other accounting estimates indicate that the total cost for all corrections, medical and support services for adults and juvenile immigrant criminals nationally to be over $1.8 billion dollars. Based it on that. but technically my bad I don't know exactly. WTF relevance does it have here.
There is a difference between "effective range" and "maximum range".
Wez
DA
Irony Alert
Buddhabman
SILVER ELITE
Maybe you are just slow.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.
This article explains why the price of repeating arms declined so steeply. Then it describes some of the repeating arms that were already in use when the Second Amendment was ratified, including the 22-shot rifle that was later carried on the Lewis and Clark expedition.
https://fee.org/articles/firearms-technology-and-the-original-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/
Sheriff Joe
DA
Just the facts ma'am. If you are going to spout wrong numbers then you will be called out on it.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Maybe you can't keep up.
Bruddah IZ
DA
High-Capacity Printing Presses
No one would dispute that modern arms are much improved from 1791 in terms of reliability, accuracy, range and affordability. But the gap from the 22-shot Girandoni (powerful enough to take an elk) to a modern firearm is pretty small compared with the changes in technology of “the press.” Compared to the one-sheet-at-a-time printing presses of 1791, the steam and rotary presses invented in the 19th century made printing vastly faster — a speed improvement that dwarfs the speed improvement in firearms in the last 500 years. When the First Amendment was written, a skilled printer could produce 250 sheets in two hours. Today, a modern newspaper printing press can produce 70,000 copies of a newspaper (consisting of dozens of sheets) in an hour. Now, with digital publishing, a newspaper article can be read globally within minutes after it is written.
This means that irresponsible media can cause far more harm today than they could in 1791. For example, in 2005, Newsweek magazine published a false story claiming that American personnel at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated Korans belonging to prisoners there. Eventually, Newsweek retracted the story. But the phony story had already spread worldwide, setting off riots in six countries, in which over 30 people were killed. Had Newsweek been using 18th-century printing presses, the false story would have mostly been read by several thousand people in the New York City area, where Newsweek is based. It would been months — if ever — before the Newsweek issue with the false story was read by anyone in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
We do not limit any constitutional right to the technology that existed in 1791. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court observed:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
This is an accurate statement of constitutional law, but it understates how truly frivolous the argument against modern firearms is. The people who ratified the Bill of Rights certainly did not anticipate the invention centuries later of the Internet or of thermal imaging sensors. The American people of 1791 did not have to anticipate the invention of repeating arms, because such arms had been in existence for centuries.
Buddhabman
SILVER ELITE
I said it was a guess, and the inference stands, cause you don't know any different or better anyway. Your buddy pushed out the distraction question I just tried to keep the convo going and answer a question from a man in need.
Bruddah IZ
DA
High-Capacity Printing Presses
No one would dispute that modern arms are much improved from 1791 in terms of reliability, accuracy, range and affordability. But the gap from the 22-shot Girandoni (powerful enough to take an elk) to a modern firearm is pretty small compared with the changes in technology of “the press.” Compared to the one-sheet-at-a-time printing presses of 1791, the steam and rotary presses invented in the 19th century made printing vastly faster — a speed improvement that dwarfs the speed improvement in firearms in the last 500 years. When the First Amendment was written, a skilled printer could produce 250 sheets in two hours. Today, a modern newspaper printing press can produce 70,000 copies of a newspaper (consisting of dozens of sheets) in an hour. Now, with digital publishing, a newspaper article can be read globally within minutes after it is written.
This means that irresponsible media can cause far more harm today than they could in 1791. For example, in 2005, Newsweek magazine published a false story claiming that American personnel at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated Korans belonging to prisoners there. Eventually, Newsweek retracted the story. But the phony story had already spread worldwide, setting off riots in six countries, in which over 30 people were killed. Had Newsweek been using 18th-century printing presses, the false story would have mostly been read by several thousand people in the New York City area, where Newsweek is based. It would been months — if ever — before the Newsweek issue with the false story was read by anyone in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
We do not limit any constitutional right to the technology that existed in 1791. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court observed:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
This is an accurate statement of constitutional law, but it understates how truly frivolous the argument against modern firearms is. The people who ratified the Bill of Rights certainly did not anticipate the invention centuries later of the Internet or of thermal imaging sensors. The American people of 1791 did not have to anticipate the invention of repeating arms, because such arms had been in existence for centuries.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Most people are slow to comprehend babble.
Buddhabman
SILVER ELITE
Bruddah, the law is the law, smarter dudes than the cat who wrote that mal derived analogy disagree with what he states
Buddhabman
SILVER ELITE
You are slower than most. making you special Especially Slow. Be proud Bruddah and own who you are.
If the people really want to get rid of guns, then try and repeal the second amendment.
Until then, stfu.
Guns are tools, like hammers or hatchets.
The Vikings used those tools but nobody ever blamed the tools.
Until then, stfu.
Guns are tools, like hammers or hatchets.
The Vikings used those tools but nobody ever blamed the tools.
Bruddah IZ
DA
You made a statement that reducing gun violence would "reduce cost and ultimately our debt". Relevant to your argument, yes?
Wez
DA
Did one Viking kill 58 people from 400 yards away?
There is no need to repeal the 2nd, nor to take away everyone's guns. Just enforce it as written, not as the NRA has propagandized it recently.