Posted on 06/03/2019 5:25:40 AM PDT by JamesP81
Unfortunately, I do. Every post must be read as there are occasionally jewels of wisdom that can’t be found anywhere else.
The process is time consuming and can be mentally painful, LOL.
Though difficult to do so, the effect is observable. The slight increase in velocity moves the point where the bullet slows through the sound barrier and destabilizes just a little further out.
For its uses, the device certainly has its place. Right next to barrel crowning, muzzle brakes, compensators, and flash hiders.
Personally, It’s a particularly sore point of contention that they’re not more readily available.
Being interested in the sound reduction primarily, I made sure to research as much as I could and then bought one for my .22 caliber firearms almost a year and a half ago.
Just one. A small metal tube. Because tinnitus sucks. And the law says I can’t make one for ten bucks.
I’m STILL waiting on the National Firearms Act department of the Bureaucracy of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives to decide whether or not I am worthy of turning a tube counterclockwise onto my barrels.
Also, I may be a bit biased.
I don’t talk about what I own.
California should make everyone think about open talk in public.
Bias is good. Hold out for the best.
Glad you found something that is working for you.
Good rule to follow. Definitely agree on that and California.
I mention what little I have because it all has a paper trail already or I don’t actually have it, as with the can.
It’s a calculated risk here, particularly living near a college.
But it has provided opportunities to learn and change worldviews.
Also, I appreciate your taking the time to listen and respond to my musings and queries.
I’m willing to listen to reasoned logic.
You provided some information that changed my thoughts.
Could have changed them a lot earlier, if someone else had bothered to make an argument that wasn’t pretty much, “I said so.”
I entered this thread because the usual suspects were slamming Trump again. I don’t know who they think is going to be a better president.
What I see is folks willing to destroy the 95% Trump is doing right, to bring aboard another person who will do 20% of what is right.
If we want progress, we’re going to have to act like adults.
The question of whether a part is integral to a gun or not is an interesting question. Is any feature of a gun allowed because it’s an accessory to a gun? Now, this is not an attempt at a Gotcha, but I’d be genuinely interested in your thoughts on the following, admittedly hypothetical scenarios.
In your opinion, would it be a violation of the 2nd Amendment to ban guns painted a certain color? I’m guessing, not directly, although the courts may argue that such color restrictions, if arbitrary, might be intended to have a chilling effect on gun sales and ownership.
How about this scenario. What if guns were being designed to look like toys, or water pistols, because some idiot decided it was a nice look. The increased danger from kids using them accidentally could be a problem. Would the government have the right to restrict such weapons, or is it anything goes, as long as it’s an accessory or feature of a weapon?
Whether something is integral or necessary to an arms operation should be based on the individual purpose of that arm, not the potential or appearance of the parts.
So, my vote is yes, but that’s just what I consider ideal.
Your hypotheticals present an interestingly similar problem.
How a weapon appears.
But first, consider how a ban on a color or other appearance could be abused.
If the orange found on toy guns was banned from application on their more dangerous counterparts, could that reasoning not be applied to anything dangerous? Particularly tools and areas traditionally marked with the same color to indicate a hazard? Or perhaps the inverse, everything remotely dangerous must be orange. No more special cases for your phone or fancy paint jobs for your neighbors hot rod.
I would argue that they are indeed violations in that banning something based on its color or appearance is an attempt at sidestepping the constitutional issues by naming an ancillary purportedly within their purview. I am neither lawyer nor legal scholar, but this would appear to be a 2nd, and 10th amendment violation at the least.
The second specifically prohibits the federal government from hindering the keeping and bearing of a great undefined “arms” by citizens, as they are the militia that must necessarily be kept regular (regulated) to ensure the security of the freedoms they enjoy.
The tenth could potentially limit the choice of colors to the states respectively, or to the people.
But appearance to different people appeal in different ways. Would anyone want their state arbitrarily deciding the legal colors for all vehicles must include or be limited to hot pink and vomit with orange flecks OR ELSE?
Not to mention the slippery slope and the utterly predictable failure to meet articulated goals that inevitably result.
Yes, I would agree that prohibiting gun ownership based on something arbitrary like color would probably, rightly be viewed as an indirect attempt to limit firearms, even though avoiding any ‘illegal’ colors would probably be easy enough.
I guess the real question is, does the 2nd Amendment protect any feature that may be built into a gun, just by virtue of the fact that it is attached to a gun? If that premise is accepted, then things which would normally be prohibited would be allowed just by virtue of the fact that they are a feature on a weapon. If bullets are considered part of a gun, does the 2nd Amendment protect bullets that are radio-active, or are coated with some disease spreading pathogen? I don’t believe so.
Ever shot an integrally suppressed firearm? I have. It is no longer than a regular pistol or rifle, just slightly larger in diameter. Solves the whole problem you mention. The reason not many are manufactured in this country is the stupid NFA 34 law.
People like you are the problem. Go shoot some real guns. Get educated. Put down the video game controller, and join us in reality.
I don’t know where you live, but I know people who own 50 caliber firearms. Where is this “public safety” clause for banning arms in the Constitution? Is that next to the penumbras and emanations, and the abortion clause?
What other "parts" of my Second Amendment rights do you wish to excise?
It had been my understanding over the years, that a special permit had to be obtained to have a 50 cal weapon. I don’t think that is correct. I had thought of it along the lines of fully automatic weapons.
There haven’t been any people who owned a 50 caliber weapon in my life.
I don’t have a particular burden over those weapons. I was merely using them as an example. It appears it wasn’t a good example after all.
My thoughts on any kind of arms, is how reasoned is it to have it available to the public.
At some level, it does seem that restrictions would be wise.
Grenades, C4, bazooka type weapons, shoulder fired missile systems.
I think it’s a reasoned debate concerning these items. Some folks don’t want to see anything restricted. Some are more inclined to sign on at some level. Still others want no guns or other weapons at all.
I don’t want to see any further gun control legislation.
It’s time to put the blame for violence squarely where it belongs, the perps who commit violence.
The public should have the right to be armed.
If these mass shooters were put out of our misery before they could harm people, there’d be a lot less of it.
Avoiding “illegal” colors would be as simple as avoiding illegal firearms currently is.
I see where you’re going with this though. “Where is the line one cannot cross?”
A weapon is its parts, is my point.
How those parts are used determines what a weapon does and how.
The total of that weapons parts make it a functional arm.
If “arms” is undefined, anything that is part of a particular arm falls into that category, does it not?
But, is the rest not moot? Radioactive and biologically hazardous materials being used on people is already and act of war or terrorism. And the citizens are to have the final word per the constitution.
The line is what then affects others. At which point, those affected require the arms most suited to their purpose in defense. Not arms suited to an arbitrary or bureaucratic purpose.
It’s no different than having vehicles limited.
Only those who can demonstrate a need can own a V8 engine.
Fuel tanks should be limited to 5 gallons to prevent criminals from escaping the police.
Mufflers are only used by those up to no good so they should be registered.
I feel extraordinarily absurd using their arguments for limits like that, but it seems a decent comparison.
But we have all kinds of laws like that already. How about speed limits? Some people may be capable of driving responsibly at 120 mph and others aren’t. Since there is no practical way of determining who should be allowed to drive 120 mph and who shouldn’t be, we have speed limits that apply to every one. To some degree, that’s the nature of most of our laws. There’s nothing unconstitutional about it. The question of whether an individual instance goes too far is a judgement which needs to be made in each individual case. The Constitution is there to set limits to how restrictive laws can be, but within those limitations, laws by their very nature generally limit our freedoms to some extent.
That post you replied to was in reference to the French Revolution, actually, so telling me to put down video games and get educated isn’t going to help.
Precisely.
“No practical way to determine”
“Needs to be made in each individual case”.
In the case of vehicles, as they aren’t mentioned in the constitution, they have been left to localities to govern. In most cases, on individual or local basis. Speed is limited, not access, not components.
You’re not viewed as potentially criminal because you own a sports car or a quiet engine.
As for things that are mentioned, some limitations are warranted in “individually’ determined’ circumstances.
As they say “All things in moderation”.
But it is certainly unconstitutional for a blanket application as it ignores individual rights and presumes all are guilty rather than resort to predefined methods of determining guilt for actual crimes.
Banning parts of something otherwise legal or in the case of arms, protected no less, is an extension of that abridgment.
Personally, I don’t appreciate being presumed criminal for wanting to own and operate machines and components I have every right and, indeed, responsibility to. Particularly with no recourse for redress.
And the less control some bureaucrat in California or New York has over my life and abilities half a country away, the better.
bump
That’s a big philosophical argument there.
Historically, it covered the private ownership of armed warships and artillery. That’s pretty expansive.
I would argue that the 2A does not extend to arms that are directly used as an expression of sovereignty or political authority. This would be your WMDs which are primarily about foreign policy, a power that is legitimately ceded to the federal government in the constitution.
There is little other regulation that is constitutional. I think you can make a case for a licensing system for arms that are dangerous by their presence without human intervention. This would cover your radioactive ammunition. IE, a rifle sitting on a table and no one touching is incapable of causing harm, and safe handling requires no special technical knowledge.
Radioactive ammunition is harmful by its unattended presence, and would require specialized technical knowledge to handle it properly.
This leaves a lot of stuff unregulated. Belt fed MGs, shoulder fired anti tank weapons, portable surface to air missiles, and field artillery to name a few. I don’t see this as a problem. Most of that stuff is incredibly expensive; the only people who would buy something like that would be rich people for the occasional lulz. Those people aren’t a threat.
“I would argue that the 2A does not extend to arms that are directly used as an expression of sovereignty or political authority. This would be your WMDs which are primarily about foreign policy, a power that is legitimately ceded to the federal government in the constitution.”
That’s a good point. I hadn’t heard that argument before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.