Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by JakeStarkey, Aug 6, 2019.
What problem shooting wild vicious dogs is good that sounds like a solution.
Sure. Soldiers carry S/A pistols.
Minorities aren't US civilians?
The perception relating to semi-automatic firearms is what has changed. That perception is entirely unconnected with the rate of firearm-related homicides.
Do be sure to present something else that isn't nine years out of date.
It is still a fact that civilians are able to shoot with a weapon in the same way soldiers are being taught to shoot.
That soldiers are able to shoot with even more firepower doesn't change a thing.
The gunners do not understand that the 2dA is not absolute and that SCOTUS, not they make the decisions.
So what. Even the fact that civilians may not have full auto, shows the amendment is not being limited by something like that.
Your point was that Americans show a well enough refrain. And that seems not the case when comparing it to the EU. Your question you post now has nothing to do with your previous point.
Your reply has nothing to do with my question.
It's not. When you drag in other examples and make claims than the burden of proof is on you.
My argument is to change that law, and ban semi as well.... since semi is a way that soldiers use for warfare.
You are free to disprove me at your leisure that the statistics have radically shifted.
But I think we both know that the chances things shifted radically is absolutely minimal.
You GOP better start making the connections because the rest of the nation is.
Which simply does not matter. Semi-automatic firearms were owned and available to the general public of the united states long before the united states military ever officially adopted them, thus they were in common use before military service, and that fact has remained a constant throughout their existence.
For better or worse, semi-automatic firearm technology does exist, it is widely available to everyone, it is very common, and there is simply nothing that can be done about it. Accept it for being the fact that it is, and move on.
What is not understood on the part of yourself, is that there is simply no standard under which the united state supreme court will or even could rule semi-automatic firearms are not protected by the united states constitution. The technology is far too old and widespread to qualify as being anything except in common use for legal purposes.
When the restrictions on fully-automatic firearms were first implemented, even the congress at the time acknowledged that it had no legal authority to prohibit their ownership, due to the second amendment.
Does the European Union have a strong firearm-related culture that values the ability to legally own a firearm? Does the European Union have a second amendment? Does the European Union have more firearms than individuals to legally own them on a one-to-one ratio?
And the question presented on the part of yourself has little to nothing to do with the actual topic.
Then cease posting nonsense about matters that are actually not understood on the part of yourself.
The manner in which a soldier may consciously use a piece of equipment has no bearing on the law, anymore than how they may choose to operate a common motor vehicle.
The simple fact of the matter is that semi-automatic rifles are used in only a statistically minute number of murders in a given year. They are responsible for far fewer firearm-related deaths in the entire united states in a given year, than the number of firearm-related homicides experienced by the city of Chicago in the same year from handguns.
Does the individual who intends to commit a mass shooting openly and proudly promote the fact that they intend to kill as many people as possible? Do they broadcast their intentions for everyone to see because they feel a sense of pride in declaring to the world that they will become a mass murderer who will end the lives of others? Do they actively tell the federally licensed firearms dealer that they want a specific firearm because it will allow them to kill the most victims in the shortest amount of time and with the least amount of effort?
If not, then there is no comparison to be made between the two.
This is objectively false.
As is this.
So you want all semiautomatic guns banned?
If SCOTUS defines as 'weapons of war' all semiautomatic weapons and bans them, yes, they will be banned.
name one army that uses the AR-15 as a standard issue weapon.
or any other semi-auto rifle as a standard infantry weapon
Not a standard for 'weapons of war', Ronstar
If all firearms are so-called "weapons of war" then ultimately no firearms can be considered as weapons of war. If a particular phrase can be read to include everything, then it ultimately includes nothing as the term is meaningless and serves no reason for existing.
That is of no concern that civilians have access to weapons that shoot just like how soldiers.
And them civilians are using them to rage war in the country when it pleases them.
You claim there can not be done a thing about it, while it can be made illegal through laws.
Your civilian opinions will not matter to SCOTUS.
I'm not seeing any arguments why it supposedly false.
You want your kids be part of a mass shooting?
I was discussion the AK.
All guns will have to be banned because all guns are 'weapons of war', muzzle loaders, flintlock rifles and pistols, lever action rifles, revolvers, and everything else.
No army uses the AK as configured for the civilian market as a rifle.
Separate names with a comma.