Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: supercat
"Cane gun, perhaps not."

Now that's more along the lines of what I was trying to get at in my post 15.

The "right to bear arms" may not include the right to bear a cane gun.

Now, if not, why not?
27 posted on 05/05/2003 5:52:40 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: KrisKrinkle
The "right to bear arms" may not include the right to bear a cane gun.

Now, if not, why not?

Just about any object can be used as a weapon. If the government were forbidden from taxing or placing any restrictions upon every item which could possibly used as a weapon, it would be unable to tax or restrict much of anything.

The variety of items which could potentially be useful as weapons in a well-functioning citizen army is quite large, and probably encompases most artifacts that would normally be described as "weapons". One might reasonably question, however, whether a cane gun could be effectively so used. Most such weapons are apt to be no more readily kept at hand than a pistol and are apt to be more difficult to fire either quickly or accurately. As such, their military usefulness may be dubious at best.

Something like a Glock 17 or M-16, however, would have clearly demonstrable military usefulness; something like a Bryco model 38, while not used by any military, could reasonably be allowed as a poor person's "nearest equivalent" to a good military pistol.

29 posted on 05/05/2003 8:09:42 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson