On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 18:01:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<
Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:12:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
On 9/8/2024 11:18 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/7/2024 9:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
You've made such statments dozens of times - effectively saying "but
cars kill more people and we don't ban cars."
>
I've rebutted that over and over, pointing out that the benefits of
cars outweigh the detriments - something not true of the type of
firearm you passionately worship. (Despite not owning an example!)
>
And society certainly does _try_ to curtail drunk driving and
speeding. But gun worshipers rail against any attempt to restrict use
of guns.
Good old Frankie... there have been restrictive gun laws since the
1930's.
Nonsense.
We live among citizens who truly and sincerely want to abolish personal
autos and trucks. You are not among them but that's a difference in
degree rather than general outlook.
>
Banning cars and trucks is a tangential point, one I did not address;
and in raising it you are yet again focusing on a minuscule portion of
the population. I've absolutely never met anyone who wanted to abolish
personal cars and trucks.
>
Many view the NFAs (1936, 1968 et seq) as unconstitutional considering
the plain language of the 2d Amendment, but that is a political dead
end. Just as dead as 'banning autos'.
>
Yes, there are far more who consider _any_ restriction on guns to be
unconstitutional. (Far more than the ~zero who want to ban personal cars
and trucks.) Those people were rightfully considered nut cases from
roughly the 1790s until the well financed takeover of the court system
within the past 20 or so years. I say that because there were reasonable
restrictions on firearms right from the nation's beginning.
Yup, and the earliest I have found are:
https://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/GunControlColonialNewEngland2.PDF,some gun control laws of Massachusetts,
Plymouth, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
required nearly everyone to own gun,
and to carry that gun to church, or when traveling away from home.
Connecticuts 1650 laws required
everyone above the age of 16, with a few exceptions, to own a good
musket or other gun, fit for service
.1
A 1636 law required every militiaman
to have two pounds of gunpowder and 20 bullets at home before the end
of August
next. The militia officer for each settlement was to take view of
their several Arms
whether they be serviceable or no. [spelling modernized in all
quotations in this article]
In 1637, Connecticut changed the law very slightly, with a fine of
five shillings for each
failure to appear so armed with a gun and ammunition.2
https://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/MiddleSouthernColonialGunControl.PDFGun Control in the Middle & Southern Colonies
Shortly after the Dutch colony of New Netherlands was taken over by
England, and
renamed New York, the Duke of York gave orders for the arming of its
people. Besides
the general stock of each town, every male within this government from
sixteen to sixty
years of age with a few exceptions, was required to be armed. Heads
of households
were required to arm themselves at their own expense; if sons or
Servants, at their
Parents and Masters Charge and Cost
. If you were not armed, the
penalty was five shillings
Maryland also required its free population to be armed. Lord Baltimore
was the
founder of Maryland. (You are allowed one guess for whom Marylands
largest city is
named.) He gave instructions to settlers emigrating to Maryland,
including a very
detailed list of tools, clothing, and food to bring with them. On that
list, for each man,
Item, one musket
Item, 10 pound of Powder
Item, 40 pound of Lead,
Bullets,
Pistoll and Goose shot, of each sort some
February or March of 1638 required that every house keeper or
housekeepers within this Province shall have
ready continually upon all occasions within his her or their house
for every person
within his her or their house able to bear arms, one serviceable
[working] gun along with
a pound of gunpowder, four pounds of pistol or musket shot, match for
matchlocks and of flints for firelocks
.
Want to discuss "restrictions on firearms right from the nation's
beginning" And it might be noted that my references are from the real
"beginning".
No there weren't. Years later, some localities insisted on "no guns in
town" but it was as unconstitutional then as it is now.
>
That said, present restrictions are many, punitive, Byzantine, expensive ...
>
They haven't bothered me a bit; nor any member of my extended family;
nor any of my close friends, including those who hunt.
>
...and? It's not all about you. Really!
>
and largely to little effect on crime, especially murder, given the
significant number of firearms crimes by 'prohibited persons' with
stolen weapons and no paperwork whatsoever.
>
The gun industry has successfully saturated the nation with their wares.
>
...due to consumer demand. What are you going to do?
>
Gun fetishists are constantly adding to the supply, making it far too
easy for "prohibited persons" to grab a gun in a moment of anger.
Further increasing the supply, and the firepower, is worsening the
problem, not helping it.
>
Automatic weapons have been
severely regulated since 1936, but the current supply of auto sears for
popular pistols from the PLA to US criminals is rampant.
>
Right. And gun fetishists are responsible for the very existence of
Glock switches. And they argue against legal efforts to reduce the problem.
>
A autofire handgun is ridiculous. Only a rapid fire handgun expert
(are there such people) could keep the thing under control. More
dangerous to birds, than humans.
>
p.s. The AR platform requires significant modification for auto
operation and as such is a rarity.
>
Really? Bump stocks no longer exist?
-- Cheers,John B.
…