What Constitutional support do you have for banning and confiscating semiautomatic weapons in the US?
Fun facts: Armor plated vehicles are legally available to anyone who can afford them, nor are gun turrets or rams prohibited. Semi-automatic weapons, with the exception of pistols and large guns (think tanks or arty) are not generally used in the military, certainly not in the US military. ALL firearm rounds of sufficient velocity are 'armor piercing', and most 'bulletproof vests' are designed to protect against handgun rounds, not those that come out of rifles at 3x the speed of handguns. Some years back there was some controversy surrounding teflon coated projectiles, but it turns out those are no more 'armor piercing' than any other type... It boils down to speed, and if you want protection against rifle rounds (that typically travel at about 3,000 fps, which is faster than sound), you need metal plates. For that matter, outside of the technical ways that firearms work, even revolvers can be categorized as 'semi-automatic', because those, like the more traditional ones that carry that label, fire one round for every trigger pull. As for 'extended clip' (sic), there really is no such thing. MAGAZINES are used to feed ammunition into a weapon (except revolvers and single-shot weapons), and in some relatively unusual instances, clips are used to load magazines, but there is no such thing as an 'extended' version. Most handguns have one specifically designed for that particular gun that won't work with any other model, and they tend to fit in the handle and hold as many rounds as there is physical room for. There are some mags available that extend past the butt of the handle, but those are relatively uncommon, unwieldy, and I wouldn't trust them for any use except being to fire more rounds at the range withouut reloading. The capacity of rifle mags vary, but some more common ones range from 10-30 rounds, and they are extraordinarily simple devices, made of plastic or metal cases, a spring, and a feeder tray. They can be easily printed by an average consumer-grade 3d printer and a commercially available spring, or you can make one.
Wrong. We can own an AR-15 because they are a bearable arm in common use for legal purposes. Any questions?
So if we had just restricted them when they first came out they wouldn't be "in common use" and we could continue to restrict them today? That sounds silly.
Now if only we could relearn that lesson and get rid of modern-day prohibition, aka the war on (some) drugs.
Fair question, and I lack the legal foundation to really answer it, but... Since other quite similar firearms were available to the public at the time (remember, the AR-15 went for sale to the general public in 1964, if not earlier), I doubt it. However, it's nothing but mental masturbation, as it's now a moot point... They do exist, they are in common use, and in accordance with the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions, are untouchable. Some States, local governments, and even inferior Courts are trying to pretend those never happened, or alternatively find some clever way around them, but sooner rather than later one or more of those cases will reach the Supremes, and I expect the next ruling to be much more forceful, blunt, brutal, clear, and possibly even include threats of sanctions and/or contempt filings if the inferior Courts do not do as their superior officers have ordered them to do. I expect this no later than 2025, with '24 being more likely. There are a dozen or more cases currently winding their way to that level at various stages, any of which could be used for precedential purposes.
I beg your pardon, I am a 'fundamentalist' about the entire Constitution, including the parts that are ignored, and the governmental powers that are routinely exercised, but have no Constitutional basis to exist.
that was an argument that Scalia admitted was problematic with automatic weapons. several commentators noted that if the weapon is in common use among civilian police that meets the test. That would be a sound basis in this area
When magazine fed semiautomatic rifles were invented in the US in 1907 the federal government had never restricted the sale or possession of any type of firearm to citizens and SCOTUS had affirmed multiple times that the federal government didn't have the authority to do so. How would you have restricted them in 1907?
Here is a simple logical fact that any "reasonable discussion" about firearm legislation must begin with: There are currently upwards of a BILLION firearms in private ownership in the U.S., depending on who you ask. So, the ability for any person who has their freedom to gain access to a firearm CANNOT BE PREVENTED OR MITIGATED. So, the ONLY WAY to prevent violent people, or anyone else, from gaining access to a firearm in the U.S. is to strip them of their liberty and lock them away. Now, with that truth in mind, you can begin a "reasonable discussion". But, as long as you believe that restricting sales of new firearms to law-abiding citizens will prevent or impede people from gaining access to one, then it is YOU who are being unreasonable and illogical.
Because of your deliberate misunderstanding of the point. Magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles have been in common use since the very early 1900s.
Because people like you refuse to give up on the idea of laying unnecessary, ineffective and unconstitutional restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding. As there is no "reason" to be found in your position, there can be no reasonable discussion about same.
Who said anything about that? Speaking of banning, are you okay with banning bump stocks, Glock switches and binary triggers? As I said, they believe laws are useless, so why have any, but then, the philosophy seems to be, citizens need to be armed because other citizens are armed and if someone uses the gun unlawfully they need to be warehoused indefinitely.....if caught. No contradiction there.
Typical nanny statism. Because a fraction of a tiny percent misuse something, let's take it away from everyone.
You have. You support.banning 'assault weapons'. What Constitutional support do you have for banning and confiscating semiautomatic weapons in the US?
Yup. Guns make already existing problems worse. And I don't buy the argument that criminals won't follow gun laws. There are plenty of examples of countries with very low gun crime rates which indicates that most criminals in those countries are obeying gun laws. The real problem is when gun laws have loopholes.
to liberals-problems involve people being able to defend themselves against violent criminals or control freak fascist government. To you, the real problems are people who don't buy into the nanny state bullshit and aren't going to put up with it being forced upon them
Until SCOTUS overturns NFA 1934 I have to support what is Constitutional. I swore oaths on three different occasions to do so and that's not going to change.
