A newer, smarter bullet

[Atypical Liberal]

53. The bigger issue here.

While many people are going off on tangents and making fun of Hoyt's firearm mis-terminology, there is a larger, more serious issue here that I have considered often.

What happens when the state of the art of firearm technology changes?

Are we going to be barred its use? I bet attempts will be made.

Suppose, for example, that the 100+ year old technology of magazine-fed firearms is displaced by something like a Star Trek phaser without a stun setting. The military adopts it. The police adopt it. Will they prevent civilians from owning them? If the second amendment was created to keep military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians, what does that mean for future military small arms in the hands of civilians?

Let's suppose a Star Trek phaser WITH a stun setting is invented. Will it become illegal to use firearms or other deadly force for self-defense? Imagine a non-lethal weapon with the ammunition capacity and range of a handgun. Why would anyone use deadly force for self defense then?

These are the bigger issues.