Future of the 2nd Amendment as technology advances

[Bagatur]

I am calling bullshit on no recoil.

I am calling bullshit on your ability to read. He said negligible recoil. And your calling bullshit is based on what exactly?
A 9mm bullet weighing about 8g and leaving the gun at muzzle velocity of 360m/s has a momentum of about 3kg*m/s, which is what is imparted back to the gun, the hand and the shooter according to momentum conservation law - this the recoil.
A laser gun with power of 100kW, which is about what they tested and use in Navy against missiles and small fast boats, shoots 100k Joules of photons every second, which have negligible momentum of 0.001kg*m/s.
That looks pretty negligible to me.

 

[oldshadow]

Yea I want a ray gun, as soon as the price comes down.

 

[Ruprecht]

Your government already regulates explosives and drones, so I'd say guided and autonomous munitions are already off the table for the civilian market.

Edit: Although apparently some might challenge that.

 

[Higus]

Is a mirror a good shield against beam weapons? I'd imagine a laser toting guy being a bit concerned about such a defense.

I used to work with lasers. A regular mirror will mostly reflect visible spectrum light. Mirrors that reflect infrared spectrum energy at the intensity from a CO2 laser are pretty expensive (~$300 for a 25x10mm cyclindrical mirror/splitter).

 

[JDragon]

Set phasers to stun.

 

[ehtheist]

Yeah, energy weapons are all good and fine, but have you ever seen the Star Trek episode where the dude on DS9 has that sniper rifle that transports its bullets through barriers to hit the target? That thing was cool.

 

[JDragon]

Yeah, energy weapons are all good and fine, but have you ever seen the Star Trek episode where the dude on DS9 has that sniper rifle that transports its bullets through barriers to hit the target? That thing was cool.

@sverre054 which episode was that?

 

[Dolomite]

If the police and military can use them to keep themselves safe - I can has too?

 

[ehtheist]

@sverre054 which episode was that?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708542/?ref_=ttep_ep13


Memorable episode. There is an assassin on the station who uses some sort of image finder that lets him view anywhere on the station, and then uses this transport sniper rifle to shoot people all over the station. Of course it got me thinking – if this one guy is using that image finder to kill people, how long has Quark been using one to watch Kira in the shower?

 

[Dolomite]

A laser gun with power of 100kW, which is about what they tested and use in Navy against missiles and small fast boats, shoots 100k Joules of photons every second, which have negligible momentum of 0.001kg*m/s.

 

[sverre054]

@sverre054 which episode was that?

Field of Fire, DS9 season 7 .The Gun was the TR-116, with micro transporter scope. Was built to bypass shielding and dampening fields that affected particle weapons and phasers.

 

[Greoric]

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The 2nd amendment doesn't protect your right to own every weapon made today, much less the weapons of tomorrow.

I suppose not to those who'd chisel away at principle. But it does say "arms". What do you think that word means?

As the future and technology continues to progress the entire consitution will need a major overhaul.

Great. Do it honestly then. Tired of fools pretending that the category of "arms" being protected leaves room for the body being prohibited from infringing to pick and choose which arms are protected. It's fucking stupid. People giving up their right to effective self-defense are stupid. On top of that it shows a complete lack of faith in one's fellow man. To me the more people with them the better because I believe in people doing the right thing most of the time. On a broad scale that means empowering them to do so is a win.

Your government already regulates explosives and drones, so I'd say guided and autonomous munitions are already off the table for the civilian market.

Edit: Although apparently some might challenge that.

A tricycle and a Lamborghini are both modes of transportation.

 

[Ruprecht]

A tricycle and a Lamborghini are both modes of transportation.

So... your second amendment means that weaponising something makes it legal and an inalienable right? That would be very strange. I doubt that one would even fly with the ghost of Napolitano.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So... your second amendment means that weaponising something makes it legal and an inalienable right? That would be very strange. I doubt that one would even fly with the ghost of Napolitano.

Well, there's finer points of the philosophy that come into play. But yeah, sorta. Imagine you're some European country citizen and you join a monetary and collective defense union that establishes a ruling body that will establish a unified coin and negotiate foreign wars and treaties. For obvious reasons you also give this body the authority to keep trade between the countries unblocked by granting the authority to resolve disputes by enacting free trade laws.

Call it paranoia, call it foresight, you citizens of the various nations make a list of shit this new body (Belgium?) either has to do or can't do, on top of other text outlining the scope of responsibility and authority now created. Among a number of things that create three branches and outlines their duties is this bit about the new body not being able to infringe upon a personal (not even "state" mind you) right to become proficient in arms, including a prohibition on disallowing ownership (and at the very least stewardship). There's also another clear statement that if the new body isn't directly authorized to do it then it is the domain of the newly ordained states, or the people.

The closest thing to a "federal" mandate of authority over the matter is "regulating" commerce between the new (once sovereign) members. Looking just at that, would you concur that the commercial mandate falls short in clarity and strength on the subject (of governing the availability of arms) compared to clear stipulation that the people have a right to "keep and bear arms"?

Is there common ground here?

 

[Ruprecht]

Well, there's finer points of the philosophy that come into play. But yeah, sorta. Imagine you're some European country citizen and you join a monetary and collective defense union that establishes a ruling body that will establish a unified coin and negotiate foreign wars and treaties. For obvious reasons you also give this body the authority to keep trade between the countries unblocked by granting the authority to resolve disputes by enacting free trade laws.

Call it paranoia, call it foresight, you citizens of the various nations make a list of shit this new body (Belgium?) either has to do or can't do, on top of other text outlining the scope of responsibility and authority now created. Among a number of things that create three branches and outlines their duties is this bit about the new body not being able to infringe upon a personal (not even "state" mind you) right to become proficient in arms, including a prohibition on disallowing ownership (and at the very least stewardship). There's also another clear statement that if the new body isn't directly authorized to do it then it is the domain of the newly ordained states, or the people.

The closest thing to a "federal" mandate of authority over the matter is "regulating" commerce between the new (once sovereign) members. Looking just at that, would you concur that the commercial mandate falls short in clarity and strength on the subject (of governing the availability of arms) compared to clear stipulation that the people have a right to "keep and bear arms"?

Is there common ground here?

Well, as per my example, the changes in technology simply make certain laws insufficient without further clarification. I mean, in the specific example I gave of weapons development, the FAA regulates pilots and the use of air space. It would be somewhat ludicrous if you could get around that regulation simply by strapping a gun or a bomb to an aircraft and labelling it "arms". If there was a legal argument to be made there, wouldn't it already apply to the BATF's regulation of explosives?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Well, as per my example, the changes in technology simply make certain laws insufficient without further clarification. I mean, in the specific example I gave of weapons development, the FAA regulates pilots and the use of air space. It would be somewhat ludicrous if you could get around that regulation simply by strapping a gun or a bomb to an aircraft and labelling it "arms". If there was a legal argument to be made there, wouldn't it already apply to the BATF's regulation of explosives?

Sorry to say, but I find it frustrating that this is what I get when I'm clearly asking to be indulged in a line of thinking so that I can make a point. Someone of your intellectual superiority shouldn't need to duck a query, so am I to assume my questions aren't worthy of response in your mind? Just say so and I won't waste our time/effort. Otherwise, please speak to my post.

 

[Ruprecht]

Sorry to say, but I find it frustrating that this is what I get when I'm clearly asking to be indulged in a line of thinking so that I can make a point. Someone of your intellectual superiority shouldn't need to duck a query, so am I to assume my questions aren't worthy of response in your mind? Just say so and I won't waste our time/effort. Otherwise, please speak to my post.

Eh? I didn't "duck" anything. You described the history of the 2A, but the post you responded to was all about the overlap between existing federal regulation and the future of weapons development.
Of course the federal mandate didn't originally cover private firearms regulation, but then it didn't cover airspace or radio spectrum frequency regulation either. Apparently any constitutional arguments against those federal regulations as "bureaucratic creep" have already failed. What are the chances then, of existing regulations governing airspace or unmanned vehicles being repealed as a result of the technology involved being weaponised and therefore falling under the catch all of "arms"? What are the chances of emerging technology being (federally) unregulated simply because it's weaponised? Not great if you look at the existing examples. Isn't that what the thread's about?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Eh? I didn't "duck" anything. You described the history of the 2A, but the post you responded to was all about the overlap between existing federal regulation and the future of weapons development.
Of course the federal mandate didn't originally cover private firearms regulation, but then it didn't cover airspace or radio spectrum frequency regulation either. Apparently any constitutional arguments against those federal regulations as "bureaucratic creep" have already failed. What are the chances then, of existing regulations governing airspace or unmanned vehicles being repealed as a result of the technology involved being weaponised and therefore falling under the catch all of "arms"? What are the chances of emerging technology being (federally) unregulated simply because it's weaponised? Not great if you look at the existing examples. Isn't that what the thread's about?

Let me rephrase. I find it frustrating that people can't allow for a response to originate to far from the answer they wish to hear, such that simple responses to simple questions weren't as rare as hen's teeth. Feel free to disagree as we all have different perspectives.

Reading your response it seems we can agree that the federal government was prevented jurisdiction over the matter of arms and it was granted to either the people themselves or the state governments?

To me this thread is about jurisdiction at the moment coupled with the desired efficacy of our laws moving forward. Am I reading too much into it? Too little?