Joe Biden wants to ban all semi auto firearms

What would be the intended lawful uses of such a weapon?

 

Re:

I never thought that I'd live long enough to honestly state that I've been shooting for well over 60 years and have watched as many changes in ammunition and firearms has occurred during that time period.

I've watched as polymer and similar plastics have replaced wood and optics have become more sophisticated and affordable but probably the biggest changes have been in ammunition.

While crude hollow points and "Dum-Dums" have been around for decades, they are nothing like the newer defensive bullet designs that sometimes also incorporate plastic.

Finally, the choice of different powders has increased to the point that it's hard to keep up with the new offerings.

So, I think that it's accurate to say that the very basic concept of powder driven firearms has remained the same but significant advances have been made in both the materials in firearms and the projectiles they fire.

Thanks,

 

imagine if someone said you would have more computing power in your portable phone then all the computers used to get to space in the 60's

 

same as an ar-15

 

You're going to have to elaborate.

Common legal uses for AR-15s and similar firearms:
1. Long distance shooting. http://thecmp.org/competitions/service-rifle/ - There's no competitive value for a line of sight weapon.
2. Competition - http://3gunnation.com/news - likewise.
3. Practice – for long distance or competition - see above
4. Plinking/recreational shooting – cheapest centerfire ammo, low recoil, adaptable frame. Too expensive for the average person to own.
5. Varmint hunting - https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2013/1/10/best-ar-15-calibers-for-predator-hunting/ - A robotic device incorporating such a weapon would be more useful.
6. Big game hunting, in the proper caliber and legal magazine. - http://www.fieldandstream.com/artic...r-style-rifles-chambered-for-big-game-hunting - not sporting enough to be allowed for this use by Wildlife officials.
7. Self-defense. - http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ultimate-300-aac-blackout-ammo-test/ Too heavy to carry.

 

some I am sure will say same for the laser gun

 

What you are "sure" about doesn't really matter.

 

You couldn't answer mine. And I didn't answer yours we already have lasers. And yeah you can hurt people with them I'm sure it's happened.

But we don't ban lasers because the predominant reason to use them is lawful.

It's not really considered an armament either.

 

FreshAir is talking about future infinite range light sabers.

 

Has nobody told him?

Star wars isn't real

 

We already have lasers. I've even used an x-ray gun.

 

And don't forget trash/hazardous material disposal/disintegration. Used oil, batteries, all kinds of stuff around the house.

 

Repeating firearms were a reality at the time that the second amendment was written.

So if you're trying to repeat the same old tired liberal lie that there was only single shot muskets at the time you can go and tell someone else that who is actually susceptible to that sort of misinformation

 

Or simply using it for your own entertainment because it's fun and we don't have to justify our right to anyone.

But yet you do not see any of these liberals demanding that cars have a speed limit of 60 miles per hour or less or anything of that nature.

What do you "need" a car that can go 140 mph?

 

Something I think second amendment supporters should understand Biden is not going to get to. The supreme Court has already ruled arms in common usage for lawful purposes are protected under the second amendment.

The burden is on Joe Biden to prove that these firearms are not in common usage and I would wish him luck if I didn't think that was futile, because we're talking about some 20 million firearms. The vast vast vast majority are not used to commit murder or hold up convenience stores and various other things.

They're used for collecting target shooting hunting self-defense all of these things are lawful purposes.

Even further ammunition and magazines are considered arms. So you can't show that only 35 round magazines or 100rd magazines are used strictly for killing people or unlawful purposes so any attempt to ban that on the state level local level or federal level will be slapped down by the supreme Court as it violates the common usage clause.

I think as 2024 comes up as the next electoral event on the horizon Biden is trying to shore up his support base.

What programmers need to be saying is he cannot do this it is a lie and he knows it's a lie because there's a supreme Court case that says no. No state government can do this no municipal government can do this no county government can do this they cannot do it because the supreme Court said no.

The only option they have is trying to get kavanaugh gorsuch Thomas to resign so they can get a new supreme Court Justice on there and get a case in front of them about this.

 

were talking laser guns, seems like would be easy to say if one would support them or not

 

but would we ban portable laser guns

 

I would definitely support laser guns.

 

No, they're predominantly used for scientific research that is a lawful purpose.

 

We already have them they're not that impressive. Outside of their application which is a cutting tool and it's pretty cool to watch a laser cut pieces of wood or Masonite

But it's not really a decent weapon.

I think he's talking about banning Star wars blasters and that's not a thing.

 

we will see, if they start being used in mass killings or not

 

Lasers already exist. They've existed for decades. Their uses predominantly scientific or industrial application so that's lawful not only do I not support banning them it's against the law to if we define them as arms at current point they're used as instruments or an industrial machinery

 

portable easy to use gun sized lasers that can cause great harm have not existed

maybe with ev's, someone could attach to battery and have attached to shot to each side of car, who knows what evil will do in the future

 

It doesn't matter. The law says you can ban arms if they are commonly used for lawful proposed.

So if there's thousands of lasers being used to cut out wood components and some idiot decides to kill people with it you still can't ban it if it's considered an arm.

 

Whatever science fiction you just got finished watching it doesn't matter if they're used for down and leave for a lawful purpose they're protected under the second amendment.