Help me proof this article guys

[Fyrtwuck]

I've watched a couple of the Piers Morgan interviews. He is really quick to point out that gun crime in the UK is much less because of the guns bans there. But what about violent crime using other weapons such as knives, clubs, etc. What are the stats on those? If you try to bring that up, he quickly sidesteps and brings the subject back to guns and how useless they are or the evil they cause. If a person wants to commit a violent crime, they will use whatever is at hand and could care less if it is legal or not.

So what if there is a ban? The criminal doesn't care. If he's caught he gets to go to a place where he pays no rent, fed three times a day, has a bed to sleep on, no bills to pay and no medical bills.

 

[3inSlugger]

Thanks everyone...submitting to the new editor in a couple minutes...we'll see how that goes.

 

[dutchwrangler]

But if firearms aren't arms, then what are arms? We're getting pretty deep in the weeds here. Many people would argue that Nature's god provided everyone with arms. Two of them. One on either side of the torso. Something to think about.

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.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr4296/text

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 arms:

103d CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4296

To make unlawful the transfer or possession of assault weapons arms.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 10 (legislative day, MAY 2), 1994

Received and read the first time

May 16, 1994

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To make unlawful the transfer or possession of assault weapons arms.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Arms Use Protection Act'.

Big difference. And this is why the government uses every term other than "arms". It's the incremental means of getting around the 2A.

 

[ignerntbend]

Big difference. And this is why the government uses every term other than "arms". It's the incremental means of getting around the 2A.

What makes all this problematic is that most people use every term other than arms. I don't think you'll be able to correct their usage.
Most people on OSA will continue to go to the gun store and buy rifles, pistols, and shotguns.
We just don't know any better.

 

[dutchwrangler]

What makes all this problematic is that most people use every term other than arms. I don't think you'll be able to correct their usage.
Most people on OSA will continue to go to the gun store and buy rifles, pistols, and shotguns.
We just don't know any better.

True. It's my hope in correspondence with my state representative that incorporating the term "arms" in legislation can become a means of defending the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening as folks simply don't understand the difference in distinction between "arms" and "firearms, weapons, guns".

As the current debate shakes out I think that the statists are less inclined to ban the hardware as ban the individual. The discussion of registration by the anti-constitutionalist is in my opinion their primary objective.

My oldest brother, who lives in Canada emailed me today in our discussion of this issue:

I do not see this latest hullabaloo about gun control as a gun grab. The real thrust of all the legislation being fielded is to 'register' 'firearms'. Those that do so will find themselves on a list that will automatically presume that registered guns are firearms and are owned by the federal government by virtue of registration. If you don't own something then you are not free to use it according to your own dictates. This will be the foundation (has been) for gun control and will set the precedents to prosecute those who are foolish enough to register their property with the federal government.

By using the term 'firearm' it is assumed that you are subject to all the rules and regulations that will be imposed on a gun registered with the feds. This presumption completely removes the legal owner out of common law under which the right to bear arms is un-a-lien-able and places him/her within the jurisdiction of contract/admiralty law under which the constitution has no bearing. In other words, register your 'firearm' and you confess to being in commerce and subject to all the rules and regulations of contract law. You have thereby removed yourself from 'the people' and admitted to being a citizen and/or resident and thrown into a three party contract, like it or not.

 

[BikerHT]

(Couldn't upload the photo I wanted to!)



Sent from HT's iPad using Tapatalk HD