Again incorrect weapons of war are not protected under the Second, firearms are and the USSC has decided that is so.
You mistake me. My remark is that many of the firearms available to consumers are indeed virtually the same weapons we equip or soldiers with. I see little difference been someone's need to own an AK-47 vs. a shoulder mounted surface to air missle.
Then since you don't understand the difference between the two you have no business becoming involved with legal lawfully owned firearms.
Why, because we put lines in different places in regards to which weapons ought to be available to the public? That's nonsense. Both are capable of killing people with great efficiency, if what we want is to reduce the death toll, particularly amongst our most vulnerable citizens, I see no practical reason to disambiguate.
You're talking about prior restraint. I am fully capable of yelling fire in a theater to create havoc - it's only when I commit that crime that my First Amendment rights no long apply. What are "weapons of war"? Victims are only affected by the criminal or negligent use of firearms, not by the legal presence of them. Handguns are pretty much banned in NYC, but you still have homicides. You still have criminals smuggling them in despite the plethora of laws making that action illegal.
I do, a semi-auto AK variant is both legal to own and to use and their is no compelling reason to restrict access to such.
We've equipped the military with revolvers, bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and pistols. Those are actually weapons of war. We haven't equipped our military with a semiautomatic AR-15 or AK-47. Since 2004, "assault weapons" or your "weapons of war" have on average been used to kill 17 people per year in mass murders. Water is used to murder more people each year.
Then the data is important. 17 per year vs 8000 per years (handguns) or 1600 people per year (blunt instruments) or 1500 people per year (knives) or 500 per year (hands and feet).
We can't exactly separate you from your voice, now can we? Take a look at police militarization for specific examples. Victims aren't hurt by pollution, just by polluters polluting illegally. We've already discussed the linear relationship between prevalence and several negative externalties, so from a pure data perspective, you're wrong. The very existence and prevalence of them in a society relates positively with deaths by them. Last I checked Trump hadn't built a wall around NYC to keep them out. So regardless of how stringent the laws are in NY or Chicago, you can always bring them in from neighboring states. We can see exactly this today with cannabis legislation... Las Vegas, but you're not convinced by people killed by them. That bit seems irrelevant to you guys. I'm sure the victims in Las Vegas are comforted by the average and the victims, resting in peace.
The singular criminal misuses of such doesn't outweigh my right to own such for any and all lawful purposes.
No, they are only a problem when someone commits a crime or is negligent with them. Otherwise they are harmless. Correlation =/= causation. Does the number of dead in Nice relate to needed restrictions on trucks? The fact that many more people each year are killed by knives, blunt instruments and rope seems irrelevant to you. No more so than the victims of parental abuse, who outnumber the dead at Las Vegas 4x every single year.
Except it is not a right being exercised in the above-mentioned cases. Rights do not entail causing deliberate harm and/or suffering to others, and if one attempts to inflict such they are not engaging in the legal exercising of a right, they are committing a crime devoid of legal protections. If such is indeed believed on the part of yourself, then explain how such is the case. If the currently available firearms are not utilized by the military of the united states, then they do not qualify as being weapons of war. Use of hyperbole does nothing to add legitimacy to the position of yourself. Other than the violent criminal element, which cannot rightfully be considered as human. Except such cannot actually be proven as being a legitimate issue. There are no accounts that can be demonstrated of innocent bystanders being shot in a legitimate case of self defense. What is keeping firearms from simply being trafficked into the state of New York from outside the state? Explain such.
Can't. I'm on my phone. I have shared it lots of times. Try Harvard school of public injury....or not
Well then I suppose we are even. Lol Can you give me the name of the agency that supports his research?
