I'm not American so the right to bear arms is not an issue from my perspective. Subject to the relevant regulations I can own and use certain classes of firearms even though I have no express constitutional right to do so. Same thing in most other western democracies. I might note that your constitution is a living document, not the 10 commandments and as such is subject to amendment the will of the electorate. Its up to the citizens of your country whether you expand or contract a currently existing right or decide to remove or add rights as you deem necessary. Although I might add that such changes are never to be made lightly.
Preventing hunters from using hunting equipment Preventing the use by individuals with legitimate security concerns What is your answer to your question?
Such restrictions came into existence solely for the purpose of taxation. They serve no purpose in protecting the public. Therefore they are devoid of a legitimate reason for existing.
Because there is simply no way of preventing such. Semi-automatic technology exists, and there is no way of undoing that existence. Firearms capable of firing as fast as the trigger can be pulled are commonly owned, and it is not legal for them to be removed from ownership simply because they are semi-automatic.
The united state supreme court already rejected the notion of subjecting the scope of the second amendment to a judicial interest balancing test where it would be weighed against the concept of public safety, stating that such an approach would render the scope of the second amendment nonexistent based on the whims of future judges. Motor vehicles are already a public safety hazard, as they are responsible for at least thirty five thousands deaths in the united states every single year.
Aww. Avoiding the point. How cute. Why do you think you can get 38 states to agree to repeal the 2nd?
And yet, mass shootings are held up as disasters of biblical proportions. What's the standard mag for an AR15? How do you know? These fall under the NFA of 1934 and are mong the most heavily regulated firearms in the US. An AR carbine or pistol in a major pistol caliber is, most of the time, a better home-defense weapon than a shotgun. And, my bolt-action M700 can reach out and touch someone well past 500meters. So...?
Those are still pretty vague, however that is the most solid answer anyone has made in this entire thread, so thank you. There are no more gun control laws I support. I would like to see prohibited persons recorded attempting to purchase firearms (tens of thousands per year nationwide) actually investigated and prosecuted for that crime, which currently does not happen. But that is only enforcing the laws that already exist. I think we've reached the limit of effective gun control in this culture, and further attempts will suffer diminishing returns not worth the cost. IMO we already have gun control that sacrifices too much individual liberty to federal (and state) authority. Restricting the gun rights of people who use marijuana, for example. I would not have supported any bill that included that (however, iirc, We The People never even voted to make that happen; its been done by 'regulation creep').
1. At least you're honest about wanting to repeal the 2A. 2. There is no current capability to tag ammo. That's an anti-gun dream, just like smart guns. The idea exists, but the technology does not. The rest of your crap is typical anti-freedom nanny state bull.
Glad we aren't a democracy. We are a constitutional republic that supports the idea of individual rights (i.e. rights of the minority). Using your logic, the south should still have Jim Crow, since the majority of people in the South at the time supported it. Glad we aren't using your logic as part of our politics. Democracy is mob rule.
What was the exact scientific method that was utilized to determine that such an amount was an acceptable amount of ammunition for a single magazine? How was it concluded that no private individual, absolutely no private individual regardless of location or circumstances, could possibly have a legitimate need for more eleven or more rounds of ammunition in a single magazine? How is the amount anything other than entirely arbitrary and capricious? Ultimately for what purpose? What does such a proposal serve to accomplish that is beneficial to the public? Will such ultimately serve to prevent or otherwise discourage an individual from engaging in firearm-related violence at some point down the line? Ultimately for what legitimate purpose is such warranted? Insurance will not pay for the consequences of criminal acts by the policy holder, so a mass shooter cannot be made to pay for their damages. How will such serve to prevent or otherwise discourage an individual from engaging in firearm-related violence? How will such serve to reduce the number of firearm-related deaths in the united states? Ultimately for what purpose? What will such accomplish? Why prevent legal firearm owners from being able to purchase ammunition for a firearm that they do not own, if such ammunition cannot be utilized in the firearms they possess? Such has proven to be physically impossible. Therefore there is no point in discussing the matter further. Ultimately for what purpose? What does such a proposal serve to prevent? What constitutes hoarding of ammunition, and how will such be determined? More often than not, red flags are outright ignored by those who are in a position to do something about it. The FBI was warned about Nickolas Cruz, and they refused to investigate his claims about wanting to commit a school shooting. The mother of the individual responsible for the El Paso incident warned law enforcement about her son, and they refused to investigate the matter. They are suggestions, but they are devoid of excellence. The above is nothing more than a list of talking points, devoid of anything resembling rational or coherent thought.
High capacity rifles (all rifles in general) are not a public safety hazard, statistically. yes, they can be hazardous, but there are few things on earth that are never hazardous. (even oxygen and water are hazardous). Per the FBI, less than 5% of gun murders involved rifles at all (and semi-auto rifles are only a subset of rifles). In 2017 (last year we have full records for), there were 403 murders with rifles (all rifles, not just semi-auto rifles). There were 10,982 murders with firearms. That means that rifles were responsible for 3.7% of gun murders. Hardly a public safety hazard. Out of the 15,129 total murders, cutting instruments (knives, etc.) were responsible for 1632 murders (over 4 times the number committed by rifles), and unarmed people were responsible for 696 murders (150% of what rifles caused). https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
"The tags primarily consist of naturally-occurring pollen, a substance that evolution has provided with extraordinary adhesive properties," says Professor Paul Sermon from the University of Surrey, who has led the research. "It has been given a unique chemical signature by coating it with titanium oxide, zirconia, silica or a mixture of other oxides. The precise composition of this coating can be varied subtly from one batch of cartridges to another, enabling a firm connection to be made between a particular fired cartridge and its user." https://phys.org/news/2008-08-nanotechnology-tagging-gun-crime.html This is one idea of how to tag bullets there are others if you are interested. You "seem" concerned about the illegal use of firearms, but what to do? Y'all got nothing. Cutting off the supply of ammunition to illegal gun owners is a step in the right direction.
Sure.if you actually can't hit what you are aiming at with eight shots you are way to incompetent to own a gun.
Really you can believe that with the current mass shootings? Where do you stand on rocket launchers for civilians?
So I can own any gun I want as long as I can hit 1/8 shots with it? Maybe you could be a little more precise?
Actually did not say that. What I said was if you can’t do the job with eight shots you are too incompetent to own a gun as a civilian.
Form the perspective of those involved in one and their loved ones? I would say yes they ARE disasters of a biblical proportion. For any other sane observer? They are still pointless tragedies.I don't believe for a minute you would consider them anything else either. About 25 rounds (I thought) but it varies - you purchase bigger or smaller mags as you prefer. Not sure what the point of the questions is BTW? Heavily regulated doesn't mean they are essential for the target shooting and game hunting. (It just means they are heavily regulated.) The vast majority of home defense shootings involve less than 5 shots being fired at ranges of less than 5 meters (based on US stats) we don't have enough shootings over here to build up a significant data base but anecdotally its about the same here. Given those stats many professionals in the US might disagree, a 5-6 round shotgun would be a perfectly valid choice in those circumstances, especially as you have have the option of choosing a load that minimizes the chances of over penetration. Then of course you have hand guns. . Course it can, that's what it was designed to do. However unlike you or I for instance, few mass shooters or criminals have the discipline and patience needed to become proficient with that kind of long arm. There is reason they aren't high on the list of firearms used in mass shootings and other crimes. You have to be reasonably competent to use them effectively. So ...(1) I doubt your M700 would be your first choice in a home defense situation and (2) you don't need an AR for home defense when you have access to other choices.
The context of the OP is refering to legislation. Legislation based on that wording would allow anyone to have any gun so long as they could hit a target with at least 1 out of 8 shots. Which I would fully support as a standalone legal requirement, btw.
Since there is nothing to physically prevent an individual who actually owns a fully-automatic weapon from engaging in a mass shooting, such a move would ultimately make no difference overall.
The article in question is eleven years out of date. Come up with something more recent to demonstrate such a proposal has actually been implemented and demonstrated as being effective.
