United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- It has been said that the one constant in the universe is change. That is certainly true when it comes to the technology involved in the right to keep and bear arms. Indulge a little stroll to 40 years ago.
In 1982, the primary handgun one would use for personal protection was, in all likelihood, a revolver chambered in .38 Special or .357 Magnum. Semi-auto pistols were around, but the revolver was still holding on. Modern multi-purpose semiautomatic long guns were not in wide circulation.
Today, the revolver is still around, but semi-auto pistols have largely taken over the personal protection role outside the home – and as the duty weapon used by law enforcement. Modern multi-purpose semi-automatic rifles are top sellers as well, precisely for the versatility
Why are we talking technology? Because 40 years from now, the technology will have changed, and the debates will change. Just as they have since 1982. In 1982, there was a real push to ban handguns, and no anti-Second Amendment extremist wanted to even come close to talking about a ban on long guns. Today, anti-Second Amendment extremists are targeting modern, multi-purpose semiautomatic long guns for an Australia-style “buyback.”
The revolution in home-manufacturing technology that is a point of controversy today with regards to its Second Amendment implications (see various ghost gun and 3D printing scaremongering by anti-Second Amendment extremists) will probably be a significant part of firearms manufacturing in the future.
We touched on one aspect in discussing the latest iteration of the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act (really, a ban). Firearms that are now out of production, like a Smith and Wesson 1066 or a Taurus PT-58HC, could very well make comebacks through computerized blueprints. The same could be the case for long guns as well.
In one sense, it means Second Amendment supporters will need to think about reforming the current system. While anti-Second Amendment extremists have hijacked the word as another way to push massive infringements on our Second Amendment rights, the proper definition of reform, as used by the American Heritage Dictionary, includes “to put in a better form or condition.”
Exactly what would be that sort of reform? There have been some thoughts I’ve had previously, as well as legislation that has sought to address the changes in technology since 1968. Ideally, a lot of laws would be repealed outright. Will we get the ideal right away? No, but incremental improvements could be very possible, with broder ones coming thanks to possible Supreme Court rulings.
But changes in technology will change not only how we exercise our Second Amendment rights, but also the debate over those same rights. Even rulings like Caetano v. Massachusetts will not put them to rest. Four centuries from now, we probably will see the Federation Phaser Association debating against Moms Demand Action for Phaser Sense. The need to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local level will always be with us.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
We need no reform, as the Bill of Rights clearly prohibits any government body (or any individual) from infringing on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. We don’t need a law saying I can build and use my plasma death ray pistol or my rapid fire rail gun, so long as I don’t use it to commit rape or murder or rob someone. The Constitution already recognizes our natural rights, and makes no exceptions for when the government is scared of capacity, range or cyclic rate, or feels these weapons may be used to defend rights and… Read more »
reform needs to be jailing government that violate rights, or just lynching them
I wonder if Mike Lindell would donate a few tractor trailer loads of pillow stuffing for the cause.
Gun tech will evolve and always will. Our #2A natural rights will not.
We need to stop even entertaining the idea that they will.
Yes, our constitutionally recognized Rights are complete, fill the entire field, and are intended to stop government in its tracks.
Intent is not enough. If the government is determined to take your liberty, you need to enforce the Bill of Rights and that is not possible if you lack the fortitude to see it through.
All things being equal, we need no “new” legislation to cope with new tech. Existing rights cover new tech. Any alterations of existing laws or new legislation weakens the intent of the founders. Layers of complex legislation dilute or rights in the end and create inroads for gun grabbers. This looks like an attempt to produce a sellable article, not an attempt to contribute.
All this gov.. does is Find ways to STEAL OUR MONEY – OR OUR RIGHTS !!! WHICH EQUALS They are either Afraid of the MASSES OF CITIZENS who are armed ? Or they are Ignorant of firearms / wusssies that are just SCARED! of guns !
They want to confiscate your guns so they can more easily shove you into a boxcar…