Is it really about the 2a as we know it or tele tech

Legal & Second Amendment
, ,
1

I though about whether this topic should be here,or guns and gear. The Political component sent me here.
I know that we are all into protecting our 2a rights,I believe we all want to live in a safe society. I also want to believe that none of us wants to advocate for any type of new or old slavery,monarchy,or socialist( including communism type rule- devoid of guns and ammunition).

I say all of this to ask this question first. Is it possible that the push against the rights of guns owners is in part or in whole due to the following:
1)The technological advances coming down the road with the military in the small arms arena?

Specifically knowing that the civilian market usually draws from the military market.

The focus of the question is based on the new telescoped( tele in the title) ammunition and weapons being prepared for the military.

  1. lethality is off the charts,weight is reduced,size is increased(6.8mm) , carry capacity is increased and is viewed as a replacement to the standard rifle and the old s.a.w.(squad auto weapon).

3This will most likely translate at some point to the pistol,upon technology refinement,and loading and carry capacity,and lethality.

4With modular systems( the telescoped prototypes and being made by many with sig Sauer in the lead at the moment and Textron close behind.

Is our battle just about the 2a or is it also about what the political animals know is coming,and restricting the rights of a free people, before the devastating technology hits that is deemed to keep us free,(at least globally).

Fyi- in General- telescoped ammunition looks like a small rectangular box or a lip stick tube size,with the bullet surrounded by the propellant. Is does not look like a current cartridge(rocket shaped). It is much more lethal.

Hybrid ammunition may or may not look like what we all use currently.

There will be a lot of money on the table as it works through the gun and manufacturing markets.

On ammunition ( older but valid)

A flyer on cta ammo from Textron 2017

2 Likes
2

Does it honestly matter? Tech companies are developing sonic and energy based weapons with some success. Eventually standard ammunition and firearms will become antiquated and be showcased in museums.
I for one would happily concealed carry my phaser, with or without the stun setting. (I couldn’t resist dropping a trekkie reference.)
Technology is going to advance, there is zero reason we should be left behind those advancements.

As far as “more lethal” goes: dead is dead, maimed is maimed, injured is injured and misses are still misses. First the technology for weapons advances, then comes the technology for first aid.

Regardless of the governments reasoning, it’s our right to keep up. I will not accept a bureaucrat trying to tell me differently.

6 Likes
3

I agree with the sentiment,I am wondering if they might be looking at things like the civil population being way better armed than the civil authorities etc.

3 Likes
4

I was listening to someone yesterday who said CCW holders are asking the wrong question and that’s not “why won’t Walmart sell my ammo” and should instead be asking does my pistol have enough fire power to take out an active shooter in body armor.

He has changed his concealed weapon of choice from a Glock chambered in 9mm, to an FN 57 (5.7x28) so he can ensure body armor penetration and some light cover penetration if needed (since it has the same ballistic characteristics of a rifle round).

Either way, I’m with @Spence I don’t think it really matters in that civilian versions of military tech always trickles down weather it’s bullets or microchips. E.g. we’re now night hunting hogs in Texas with NVA and Thermal scopes…….

2 Likes
5

I personally think it’s all about control of our right to bear arms. They know that an armed population will refuse to be overpowered by a dictator like in Germany, Russia and China.

3 Likes
6

I think it is all about control. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people from the government; the government that today wants to take away those right. If we are to stand against a despot ruler, we need to be able to stand against his army.

7 Likes
7

This is a battle we fight on two fronts. One front is indeed all about control. Politicians and other authorities may be trying to preempt our access to advancing technology, but only as a secondary consideration. The primary goal is to disarm the general population in order to solidify control, making it much easier to formulate and impose any and all sorts of laws “for our own good”. These are not people whose minds we might change through reason and education. They may or may not be aware of the facts; in either case they don’t care. They have a grand scheme to implement and the first, most important step is to disarm the common person.
The second front comprises shallow thinking, feelings-over-facts, intellectually underdeveloped children (of any age) who are easily manipulated by passionate appeals to their “hearts”. Their superficial world view leaves them susceptible to the “simple logic” of: People use guns to kill. No guns=No kill. They give no consideration to the practical realities, or impossibilties, of accomplishing their goals. They only feel good dreaming of the wonderful world they’ll live in once everything is set right. As difficult as it may seem, these are the people we might be able to reach, to educate, to bring to a state where they are capable of making a reasoned, informed choice.

5 Likes
8

This one makes me a bit nervous on the over penetration front… a groin shot with good self defense ammo will work on most body armor situations. A rifle round going through, and then going to where? That worries me.

1 Like
9

Agreed since a majority of active shooters aren’t wearing BA, seems low probability of needing that much penetration capability.

1 Like