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

From what I understand the argument is using wealth as a DELIBERATE primary limiting factor in exercising ones rights, in this case firearms. I may have misunderstood the meaning behind that...

Wealth doesn't matter in the gun control discussion unless the government DIRECTLY does something to make it a factor. As in the government mandates that M60s cost $18,000 minimum or AR-15s cost $5,000 minimum. They cannot do that because that is illegal via the US Constitution. If the government isn't directly mandating firearm prices then no it doesn't matter at all how much something costs.

I stated his argument is correct based on what I think he is talking about regarding the prices of machine guns. The reason behind why machine guns are banned and heavily regulated (according to the ATF) is for safety reasons. However, if that is the ACTUAL reason then why are they allowed at all? Only the wealthy can afford them nowadays, so are they "safer" in the hands of the wealthy than in the hands of the average citizen? It's a logical fallacy that makes no sense. If the true reason why machine guns are so regulated is for safety reasons then they shouldn't be legal to purchase at all, them being that expensive simply means that only wealthy folks can afford them. So are they safer in the hands of people with enough money or something or is the reason why they are so regulated a complete lie by the government?

That argument was brought up as a response to someone saying AR-15s should be regulated like machine guns. Which again asks the underlying question as to why? Regulating AR's like M60s will simply make them more expensive, meaning only wealthier folks could afford one. So again is the actual underlying reason behind heavy regulation to make us all more safe? If so how exactly are we more "safe" if only wealthy folks have AR's and nobody else?

You on the other hand are trying to use extremes that as I stated before are not applicable. Your counter argument is that since wealth is a logical factor then poor people are already restricted from exercising their rights because they can't afford to buy guns. Therefore the soup kitchens should be handing them out for free. Problem is that nowhere is it stated in the Constitution that you are REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED a gun if you can't afford one. So until that is written in the Constitution your "gotcha" counter-argument is again, invalid.

Think of it like voting. I as a US citizen have a right to vote unless I have had that right taken from me (criminal). Based on the US Constitution the US government is not allowed to DIRECTLY prohibit me from voting. HOWEVER, just because I don't have a car and no way to get to the voting booth doesn't mean the government is REQUIRED to send an Uber to my house to come pick me up. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that the government is required to help me go vote, it's just not allowed to STOP ME from voting.

The "logical" argument is yeah poor folks Constitutional Rights are being restricted because they don't have cars to get them to the voting booth. The factually correct defined answer is NO their rights are NOT being restricted because the Government is NOT saying they can't vote. Only the Government can restrict your rights by the correctly used definition of the term.

 

"Can be seen" is not a factual definition of anything but merely a subjective opinion. Nothing being done here is illegal. When dealing with terms of law then actual definitions must be presented, not subjective opinions of what something "seems" like.

Wealth, in a discussion involving actual Constitutional Rights (not what anyone thinks "rights" should be), only matters if the federal or state or local government directly mandates a policy that uses money as a limiting factor for exercising said rights.

Unless there is a specific law written by the government that states "You CANNOT exercise this right UNLESS you have X amount of money" then it's a moot point. If you can dig through our US laws and find me one example of that ANYWHERE in the US I will be more than willing to read it.

Poll tax = illegal. "Unless you pay X you cannot vote (right)"
Too poor to afford a car to drive to the voting booth = not illegal

The whole Class III tax stamp is only legal because it's only specific types of firearms that apply to that.

Class III $200 stamp tax for ALL firearms = illegal. "Unless you pay X tax you cannot own ANY gun (right)"
Too poor to afford $200 stamp tax and you can't afford an $18,000 M60 = not illegal

The government is not saying you can't own an M60, the price of the machine gun is irrelevant. They are simply saying if you want to own that particular type of firearm then you must pay a tax first. If they said you must pay a tax to own ANY firearm then that would be illegal because that is the government DIRECTLY putting a monetary "gateway" in between you and your rights.

So yes you are correct. Unless the government directly mandates money before you can exercise your Constitutional Rights then no wealth should not be mentioned because it is irrelevant.

 

And illegal, but rarely does the Constitutional legality of something rank very high on the priority list when it comes to proposals like this.