Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Help me proof this article guys
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dutchwrangler" data-source="post: 2077003" data-attributes="member: 4650"><p>Yes, we all have two arms in the physical sense. If one wants to argue about 'bear arms' from a standpoint not relevant to the original intent of the Drafters, then anything and everything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights can be twisted.</p><p></p><p>My point is that the Drafters and State Ratifiers knew that technological advances were certain to occur in the future. By using the term "arms", they ensured that new inventions in personal defense hardware would be protected by the 2A. If a railgun the size of a current pistol is someday viable, it's not a firearm. It could be banned the same as a fully automatic AR rifle. Unless of course the legislation written and passed uses the right and proper term "arms", which would cover new technology.</p><p></p><p>There is no negative result incurred by using the rightful term "arms" in writing legislation. It positively would stop the banning of hardware. The fact that just about every piece of legislation I've read uses the term "firearms" is indicative that the term is the .gov's preferred choice as it allows limiting types of firearms.</p><p></p><p>Here is a link to the H.R. 4296, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr4296/text" target="_blank">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr4296/text</a></p><p></p><p>Read through it and everywhere you see "assualt weapons, firearms, etc"... insert "arms". And as you do that it'll become quiet apparent that the text, when the term "arms" is substituted for those terms, immediately infringes each and every time on the Second Amendment. Whereas the common terms the government uses doesn't.</p><p></p><p>Just to show what I mean for those who won't do this, I'll quote the first portion including Section 1, striking out the government's terminology and inserting <strong><span style="color: #FF0000">arms</span></strong>:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Big difference. And this is why the government uses every term other than "arms". It's the incremental means of getting around the 2A.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dutchwrangler, post: 2077003, member: 4650"] Yes, we all have two arms in the physical sense. If one wants to argue about 'bear arms' from a standpoint not relevant to the original intent of the Drafters, then anything and everything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights can be twisted. My point is that the Drafters and State Ratifiers knew that technological advances were certain to occur in the future. By using the term "arms", they ensured that new inventions in personal defense hardware would be protected by the 2A. If a railgun the size of a current pistol is someday viable, it's not a firearm. It could be banned the same as a fully automatic AR rifle. Unless of course the legislation written and passed uses the right and proper term "arms", which would cover new technology. There is no negative result incurred by using the rightful term "arms" in writing legislation. It positively would stop the banning of hardware. The fact that just about every piece of legislation I've read uses the term "firearms" is indicative that the term is the .gov's preferred choice as it allows limiting types of firearms. Here is a link to the H.R. 4296, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. [url]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr4296/text[/url] Read through it and everywhere you see "assualt weapons, firearms, etc"... insert "arms". And as you do that it'll become quiet apparent that the text, when the term "arms" is substituted for those terms, immediately infringes each and every time on the Second Amendment. Whereas the common terms the government uses doesn't. Just to show what I mean for those who won't do this, I'll quote the first portion including Section 1, striking out the government's terminology and inserting [B][COLOR="#FF0000"]arms[/COLOR][/B]: Big difference. And this is why the government uses every term other than "arms". It's the incremental means of getting around the 2A. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Help me proof this article guys
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom