Question for folks who want to ban civilian use of semi-auto firearms:

I am curious how a Brit would defend that statement.

 

There are plenty who would like to ban some semi-automatic firearms... based wholly on physical characteristics that have absolutely nothing to do with being any more dangerous than any other semi-automatic firearm.

 

It may not be useless but it's also not useful - not enough so, that is - against multiple intruders. If it were useful enough, the police and military would use 10 round magazines, too.

 

I have two 8-round .357 revolvers that would be illegal in New York with it's 7-round limit. I don't know if they have a revolver exemption or not; I just know the capacity of some of my revolvers exceeds their magazine limit.

 

Then you are making a case against. Elmer Fudd also owns a hunting rifle. If there are licenses or permits that allow some to have any certain weapon then that creates a special class of gun owners and completely goes against the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and certainly violates the right to keep and bear arms that the amendment protects.

 

I have private security; his name is Levant. He protects me and my family. Me and my family are as important to me as the life of a rich person or politician and their families are to them.

 

We have all sorts of limits on 2A.

 

By your logic, they can ban everything as long as they ban everything... When semi-automatic firearms are illegal only criminals will have semi-auto firearms...

Our fight is lost when gun owners pretend to defend the right to keep and bear arms but, in reality, are completely willing to surrender the right if their conditions are met.

 

You forget that the criminals won't settle for a 10 round limit.

Seriously, is there a single defender on this forum of the right to keep and bear arms other than me? I don't recall hearing from one person, other than a bit of lip service here and there, any true understanding of the right, the reasons for the defense of the right, and the protected limits of the right.

Edit to add: Maybe there's one other, besides me: Xenamnes.

Ok, editing again: BryanVA.

So, there are a small number who truly understand but most of the gun owners and self-proclaimed defender of the right to keep and bear arms really do not understand the right at all and do more harm to the cause than good - in fact, I'd say they do no good at all.

 

That's not generally true. Animals have no idea what a gun is or what the sound is when they hear one. They just know it's a loud and unexpected noise and they try to hide from it. Sometimes, like in the case of feral hogs, they're too stupid to know where to run. If they see people then that gives them a clue but if the people are in a blind, in a ditch, or some other way that the hogs can't see them, they're as likely to run in circles as to run away.

 

Yeah, don't let that whole constitution thingy get in the way... Stick to your guns.... or anti-guns...

By the way, what's a lawful government force? How did they become lawful? Or government? Oh, wait... I remember... It was that whole constitution thingy... But don't let that bother you; you just surrender your rights and your liberty to anyone who comes along regardless of authority...Like I said, don't let that whole constitution thingy get in the way.

 

Where does it say that?

Here's the purpose:

I don't see anything there about government protecting any individual. The Supreme Court, as flawed as they sometimes are, agree with me.

 

Seriously? No mutiny? What do you call the deep state attacks on the elected president? What do you call impeachment? Mueller? The attempted coup by Comey and company? We have, so far, held onto our republic by a strand but even that's not over yet.

 

There's no question what the 2nd Amendment means. It means that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What people have varying opinions on is whether or not it should stand - and very few believe it should stand as written. Most, it appears, only disagree on how much it should be infringed.

 

some are really not limits on the second amendment. For example-saying you cannot hunt deer with a 22 RF is not a second amendment violation. Nor is saying that you cannot discharge a machine gun in the town hall. Federal restrictions on owning or keeping firearms are unconstitutional violations because the commerce clause nonsense is a fraud. State restrictions are often a gray area since the recent incorporation of the second amendment has still not been fleshed out with respect to legitimate police powers of state government

 

How is that possible? There are zero limits on the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is what it is and says what it says. What we have are infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. They're unconstitutional, of course, but they're there and enforced by tyrants without constitutional authority but, instead, enforced by their guns and threats of imprisonment.

The government was created by the Constitution. It exists only by the authority of the Constitution and anything those who are in government do that is not authorized by the Constitution is not a thing they have any authority to do except by the tyrannical power of their guns.

For a person who happens to have a job in government to force a thing on me that is not authorized by the very document and authority that created that government is as illegitimate as it would be for my neighbor to demand I pay him tribute with the intention of taxing me for the privilege of having him as a neighbor.

 

The 2nd Amendment always applied to the States but some might, and do, argue that the Bill of Rights only became incorporated on the States with the 14th Amendment. That it was only incorporated with McDonald is ludicrous.

Either way - and I'll save the discussion as to whether it was in 1791 or in 1868 for later - the 2nd Amendment has been the law of the land, including the states, for a very long time - before the first significant infringing gun control laws were passed.

 

Then name them.

 

Define arms.
A tank is an arm.
Full auto rifles are arms.
Anything the military has is an arm.

 

Arms means anything the military has. Ppl can have. 2A has no limit. But we have them.

 

Every arm you are restricted from owning or special requirements to own.

 

Such as what, precisely? Explain such.

 

Name something you can't own

 

That's for you to do, you made up the claim, now back it with facts or admit you are full of BS.