Right! Of course WMDs, bombs, etc don't qualify. Typical media ignorance. According to the article Wentz owns six guns: two shotguns, three rifles and a hunting bow. Since when is a bow a gun?
I think it was in the mid 80's. I remember hearing that some high school wood working shop class was no long allowed to have bows as a project as weapons were banned form school grounds.
I'm an explosives guy. I'm still miffed that right to bear arms doesn't seem to extend to explosives (compounds and materials to make them).
I guess at some point "arms" got changed to "guns: handguns, rifles, and shotguns." But to the founding fathers didn't arms included all sorts of militia arms like: guns (handguns, rifles, shotguns) or to the other extreme like infantry weapons (cannons and mortars -- often privately owned today as I the 1700s) over to other small handheld infantry weapons (dirks, swords, bayonets). All of which many militia members could be expected to privately own.
For the story, it is a crossbow? (One that fires bolts instead of arrows?). So would a crossbow be a "gun" or an "archery weapon?" I don't know. ??? It could have complicated legal status like knives do today.
MrBater brings up something interesting. I do think some of our prohibitions, rules, and laws about weapons are more for keeping the out of the hands of troubled youth ... than they are about middle-class middle-aged adults.
I think "Westside Story" and "Rebel Without a Cause" concerned people more than actual youth violence. It's the notion that placing restrictions on inanimate objects will somehow change human behavior.
So what's an "arms?" It may not be easily answered. But if it could be a militia weapon, I guess it could and should be lumped in with guns, right?
To answer my own question. The militia aspect makes the most sense. It's too hard to justify explosives, IEDs, remote detonation devices, or spring traps as militia weapons under the 2nd Amendment. Bows, yes. Explosives, no. It's the same rationale used for dirks and switchblades but not cooking knives, like paring knives.
I read this article... or what people think is an article too.
First off the head lines make in much worse than it is. Plus two of the linemen who commented said they loved the gift. I mean the guy gives his line a $2000 gift and the media wants to make a big deal out of it. Just because it is a gun.
7 comments
Latest
I guess at some point "arms" got changed to "guns: handguns, rifles, and shotguns." But to the founding fathers didn't arms included all sorts of militia arms like: guns (handguns, rifles, shotguns) or to the other extreme like infantry weapons (cannons and mortars -- often privately owned today as I the 1700s) over to other small handheld infantry weapons (dirks, swords, bayonets). All of which many militia members could be expected to privately own.
For the story, it is a crossbow? (One that fires bolts instead of arrows?). So would a crossbow be a "gun" or an "archery weapon?" I don't know. ??? It could have complicated legal status like knives do today.
I think "Westside Story" and "Rebel Without a Cause" concerned people more than actual youth violence. It's the notion that placing restrictions on inanimate objects will somehow change human behavior.
So what's an "arms?" It may not be easily answered. But if it could be a militia weapon, I guess it could and should be lumped in with guns, right?
First off the head lines make in much worse than it is. Plus two of the linemen who commented said they loved the gift. I mean the guy gives his line a $2000 gift and the media wants to make a big deal out of it. Just because it is a gun.