Henry E Schaffer wrote:
Not very realistic, IMHO. But what should be the dividing line
between realistic and unrealistic?
...
There is a continuum of rifle performance - a few examples:
.30-'06 .300 WinMag .300 Rem UltraMag .338 LapuaMag .416 Barrett .50 BMG
What should be the dividing line?
Conceding in advance the futility of this suggestion (it is too simple andreasonable), let governments define the dividing line by their own actions.
At very least (setting aside the military nature of the militia), the Second
Amendment protects civilian weapons in the hands of civilians.
In this country federal, state and local law enforcment agencies are civilian,
not military organizations. They are not trained, equipped, or expected to wage
war. They are trained, equipped and expected to suppress crime and defend
against criminals who prey upon civilians.
Accordingly, any weapon issued or authorized to law enforcement agencies is a
weapon suitable for civilians to defend against crime. Such a weapon is not
useful solely in waging war. Thus, it is a weapon protected in the hands of
civilians by the Second Amendment.
Problem solved.
(Except for a few details. If Montana, alone amongst federal, state, and local
governments in the US issues flamethrowers to its highway patrol would
flamethrowers be legal for civilians only in Montana or everywhere? Maybe we
could toss the gun controllers a bone and retrict thmem to civilans there.)
--
John E. Briggs
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
