Assault rifle ban will fail without objective definitions because...

...these are legally handguns.



I'm sure most of you who regularly check out gun control threads have noticed my attempts to 'nail down' gun controllers to some objective plan. I have not been successful. But if effective legislation is what you seek, you must figure out what it is you actually want in an objective manner that can be defined for enforcement.

It seems a common sentiment that assault rifles are targeted for restriction because handguns are too popular for restrictive legislation to be passed into law. The fact that the frequency of shootings with any rifle are far outpaced by shootings with handguns, and that even many liberal/progressive/democrats carry handguns for protection both lend much validitiy to this sentiment.

SO, how would you propose to pass effective legislation restricting assault rifles without restricting the handguns that would doom the legislation to failure but would still restrict the 'handguns' shown above, which for all intents and purposes (except technically) are actually 'assault rifles.'

And before you try to pawn this off on 'the experts'... they're the ones that already defined handguns to include the above. I wouldn't rely on them any more if I were you. Their ability to predict market adaption to regulation is demonstrably lacking, to say the least.

 

Well you can thank Donald Trump and the NRA for the fact that all they'd need to do to make those all illegal SBRs is to change the definition of pistol or of SBR to include braces and blades, the same way they changed bumpstocks into machineguns.

 

The definition of 'assault weapon' is both arbitrary and capricious; the court does not take kindly to arbitrary and capricious restrictions on the constitutional rights.

 

I have a receiver doing nothing. Building a AR-15 pistol before its made illegal maybe just the ticket. Oh, SBRs aren't illegal, you just have to get a tax stamp for $200, just like a suppressor. Its about money.

 

Might want to pick up a few binary triggers if you have a chance.

 

Its not about money, its about gun control and registration to price it out of the hands of "those people" (and I quote directly from the committee meeting where they came up with the NFA) since the AG shot down their idea of banning all firearms entirely because sir there is the 2nd amendment. Instead, they decided to use a taxation scheme first used in the Harrison Narcotics Act.
Except it was a tax without its primary purpose being to generate revenue, instead being for purposes of harassment and infringement of rights. Making it doubly invalid.
Its intended to make the process so onerous and byzantine that most people won't go through with it and the hardcores who will go on a list. No thank you.

 

No bans , shall not be infringed..... too bad lefty . You cant kick your feet and cry and and tell Americans to give up their god given rights. The second amendment of the constitution , read it , understand it, then go get bent. The whole world does not revolve around dems . Quit whining already , your sickening.

 

The 1994 "ban" included semi-auto handguns with magazines that attach outside the pistol grip assembly.

 

Well, in FL, the anti-gun nuts are proposing a state constitutional amendment to ban sales of new assault weapons (and the transfer of assault weapons after sale). They are defining assault weapon as any shotgun or rifle capable of holding ten rounds or more in a permanent or detachable magazine. This basically bans all semi-automatic rifles, including my 40 year old .22 Nylon 66 (which has a 14 round tubular magazine).

 

Easy. Eight shot capacity period.

 

God gives you the right to own a gun. That should be an interesting bible reference. Feel free to post your bible verse.

 

That wouldn't restrict any firearms. Only magazines. Is your position that firearms similar to those above should remain legal, and only their magazines should be limited?

I dont mean to badger, Im just trying to make sure I understand you correctly.

 

Who granted the right?

 

According to the Rooster god. See post #7

 

How an y'all be so obtuse!? God given right to defend ones self and loved one!

 

I asked you who granted it.
I didn't ask you what "the Rooster" said.
I already read his post

 

The only reason such restrictions exist is to facilitate the taxation of specific firearms, for the purpose of revenue generation. That is how the firearm-related restrictions in question were justified, that is the only purpose they serve in existing. It has absolutely nothing to do with keeping the public safe from harm.

 

Except it's not for revenue generation because its intentionally a byzantine system calculated to disarm the poor and minorities who have less access to the resources required to satisfy the law.
It's a farce and unconstitutional

 

Of course nobody granted it since it doesn’t exist. There is no universal right to own a gun.

 

Who granted the right to bear arms as written in the constitution?

 

You should probably read what the Constitution actually says.

 

Perhaps you can show us where it grants rights