Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

both.

which isn't an argument against machine gun bans, but is instead an argument for rifle bans. you should be careful.

 

correct. it's a matter of degree. full autos are inherently more dangerous.

 

Why is a matter of degree Constitutionally sufficient for restriction?

 

he seems to ignore that. Its the same mentality that supports idiocy like magazine restrictions and "assault weapon" bans

anything civilian police have in terms of firearms, other civilians ought to be able to freely buy and own

 

I would still like to be educated on what rate of fire determines when a gun becomes 'inherently' dangerous to the public.

 

because a restriction on rights requires a legitimate governmental interest be served by the restriction. Degree is relevant to that.

 

I haven't ignored anything.

no it isn't, as I don't support either of those.

Police aren't regular civilians.

 

the government thinks it was more than a single shot can be fired with only a single pull of the trigger.

 

Five guys with semiauto rifles would be as deadly on a crowd as would five guys driving rental trucks.

 

Why then wouldn't government interest be served by banning handguns, which account for many more deaths each year than machine guns ever have? Why is a mass shooting the measure, as rare as they are?

 

you might claim you don't support bans on 30 round magazines or modern sporting rifles but the arguments of those who want to ban them are exactly based on the same mentality you have as to select fire weapons

 

ask them

it's the potential for large scale casualties. It's the same reason explosives are heavily regulated, and why you can't own a nuke.

 

no they aren't.

 

you are not being truthful now-gun banners who hate us being armed claim "assault weapons" are more Dangerous than the stuff they don't want to ban YET, and that is why only the police should be able to own semi autos that have 10+ round magazines.

same exact argument you use

 

Why are "large scale" casualties more the government interest than total number of casualties each year from particular method? Where is the court case or other legal document that states this?

Prove this.

 

of course I am.

 

now you're just being silly. You know perfectly well degree of danger is a major factor in the law.

You didn't know that explosives are heavily regulated, or that you can't own nukes?

 

Why is a larger number of people killed in significantly fewer incidents a higher degree of danger than one or two people killed in shootings many times a day that add up to orders of magnitudes more deaths?

"Higher degree of danger" or "dangerous and unusual" or "more useful in the military" are all reasons courts are using to justify complete bans on "assault weapons", even though deaths from mass shootings involving "assault weapons" average about 12 per year since 2004, compared to over 8 thousand deaths from handguns in non-mass shootings each year. We've had entire years without any mass murders from killers using "assault weapons" since then.

Evidently "higher degree of danger" depends upon who has the power to ban what.

Your entire statement, which you failed to quote, is this: "it's the potential for large scale casualties. It's the same reason explosives are heavily regulated, and why you can't own a nuke."
Prove that the reason for banning machine guns in NFA 1934 was "the potential for large scale casualties". I believe that the largest number of people killed at one time by criminals using automatic weapons prior to the NFA 1934 was 7, in the St Valentine's Day massacre.

 

I've already answered this.

I've already demonstrated they are uniquely dangerous.

but here............https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act

 

no you haven't because there is not a single case in US history where a legally owned machine gun result in more deaths in a mass shooting than what was caused by a ten round handgun (VT), a semi auto rifle (Orlando at the gay night club), fertilizers (Murrow Building) or a gallon of gas (hispanic night club in NY)

 

Evidently Congress didn't consider them uniquely dangerous when they passed the NFA 1934, as the restrictions and taxes on ownership for machine guns were exactly the same as the restrictions and taxes on short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns, and would have had the same restrictions as handguns had the Democrats the ability to include those in NFA 1934 as they had intended.

The sponsor of the Hughes Amendment also failed to make that claim.

 

Or even illegally owned machine guns, like the ones stolen from National Guard armories and police stations by the criminals would would ignore the impact of NFA 1934.

 

What makes the police any safer with the inherent inaccuracy of machine guns?

 

I have repeatedly done so.

 

training, and the fact they are only/primarily used by special operations like SWAT or HRT teams, not your every day beat cop, which is the overwhelming majority of police officers.