Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

[Dr_Toad]

Sculptor, I hadn't heard of them, but it's very nice to know, thanks. I've met only a few cops that were assholes out the gate, and in those cases, they were big city cops. Maybe some slack is warranted there...

You oppose several small, incremental, but reasonable improvements which would help without violating anyone's rights (fire rate and magazine restrictions, example) and you support political factions and politicians who are major obstacles in obtaining the the measures you claim to support otherwise (universal background checks, mental health care, etc).

You're totally wrong here. My bolding is what's wrong with it. Small changes, here and there. Reasonable, my ass.

You resort to the same sort of willingly blind view that allows someone to be fine with misinterpreting another's statement into complete agreement with your position.

Here's a clue: When someone gives an opinion, you can agree or disagree, but you can't tell them what they really meant to say.

Unless you're a reporter, of course.

 

[Bells]

You're totally wrong here. My bolding is what's wrong with it. Small changes, here and there. Reasonable, my ass.

Yep. Great.

Now, instead of saying he is wrong, etc, can you please explain how and why it would be an infringement of your Constitutional rights to reduce magazine capacity or fire rate, for instance?

For example, in Heller, Justice Scalia made a very pertinent point:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

[...]

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.​

So, can you please explain how and why limiting the fire rate or magazine capacity would infringe on your Constitutional right to bear arms given that even Scalia, in his famous decision in Heller, noted that the rights, conferred by the Second Amendment, were never designed to be unlimited to begin with and that some firearms, such as short barreled shotguns, are rightfully and reasonably banned?

Keep in mind, as Scalia notes, and as quoted above, that the Second Amendment does not protect your rights as a citizen to "carry arms for any sort of confrontation". You should also pay particular attention to the last sentence in the second paragraph quoted above, particularly the part about "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms". You know, for good measure.

 

[Dr_Toad]

I'm so glad I rebelled against my father's wishes and became a technician instead of a lawyer, but that's beside the point.

My pistol has a 12+1 capacity, because if I need to use it defensively, I may need more than one well-placed round to protect or survive. Much different than one round from 100 yards away for hogs or varmints.

If I might remind you, SBS's aren't banned, they're regulated. And here's one that isn't overtaxed: Mossberg 590 Shockwave. Just ship it to your local FFL holder, fill out the 4473 and collect your new firearm.

This?

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

So what? Nothing argued here has any import on anything but the last bit. Enforce the existing laws in the US by all means, but don't cower in the corner whining about gun violence in the same breath as demanding equality of outcome.

If you want to go full-on communist, then you'll have to either absorb Monsanto and Tracor, Mossberg and Colt, so you can keep the people's working party alive, or you'll have to go NK and just ask everyone (but the ones with lawyers, guns and money) to eat roots and grass,

Anyone not from a shithole urban area in the US has much to worry about from crazy fools with guns, and amazingly enough, most of the shootings happen in urban shitholes where guns are regulated to the point that ordinary people either can't afford or don't have the time to spend on the lengthy process of obtaining a "permit" to protect themselves.

I wonder again why it is that guns in gun-free shitholes are more readily available to criminals?

 

[sculptor]

In Caetano:
Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe"
..................
and, then, in Heller, we have Scalia writing:
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. ..."
(a house divided...?)

OK make of that what you will, but I will be interested in viewing the next supreme court decision and opinions on the 2nd................. maybe next year?

......................
meanwhile our effete pronouncements are mildly entertaining

 

[Bells]

I'm so glad I rebelled against my father's wishes and became a technician instead of a lawyer, but that's beside the point.

My pistol has a 12+1 capacity, because if I need to use it defensively, I may need more than one well-placed round to protect or survive. Much different than one round from 100 yards away for hogs or varmints.

If I might remind you, SBS's aren't banned, they're regulated. And here's one that isn't overtaxed: Mossberg 590 Shockwave. Just ship it to your local FFL holder, fill out the 4473 and collect your new firearm.

This?



So what? Nothing argued here has any import on anything but the last bit. Enforce the existing laws in the US by all means, but don't cower in the corner whining about gun violence in the same breath as demanding equality of outcome.

If you want to go full-on communist, then you'll have to either absorb Monsanto and Tracor, Mossberg and Colt, so you can keep the people's working party alive, or you'll have to go NK and just ask everyone (but the ones with lawyers, guns and money) to eat roots and grass,

Yep. That's all nice and all, and you should also keep in mind that Scalia, who was a lawyer, is the reason why handguns, for example, are not banned in the US.

That aside, you still haven't answered the question.

Why do you believe that limiting fire rate or magazine capacity is going to infringe on your Second Amendment rights?

Given that even Scalia notes, that those rights were never designed to be unlimited.

It should be a fairly easy question to answer, given that you keep telling us how it would be wrong to limit things like fire capacity and magazine capacity, but you seem completely incapable of articulating why that would be, given the legal precedent in your country clearly advises that the Second Amendment was never designed to be unlimited and that some forms of regulation in regards to what, where and how weapons can be carried and what can be sold were necessary and fell well within the realms of the Second Amendment.

Ergo, can you please explain why you believe limiting fire rate and magazine capacity is going to infringe on your Second Amendment rights?

Anyone not from a shithole urban area in the US has much to worry about from crazy fools with guns, and amazingly enough, most of the shootings happen in urban shitholes where guns are regulated to the point that ordinary people either can't afford or don't have the time to spend on the lengthy process of obtaining a "permit" to protect themselves.

I wonder again why it is that guns in gun-free shitholes are more readily available to criminals?

I guess that's why this makes sense...

Using statistical models to compare groups of counties, the researchers found strong firearm laws in a state were associated with lower rates of firearm homicide. Conversely, counties in states with weak gun laws had the highest rates of firearm homicide.

They also discovered that counties in states with weaker gun laws had lower rates of firearm homicide when surrounding states had strong gun laws. This suggests that when a state strengthens its firearms laws, both that state and its neighbors could see protective benefits.

"We thought that because guns can cross state lines, counties in states with restrictive laws might have higher homicide rates if they were near other states with more lenient laws," Kaufman said. "But what we found was somewhat the opposite. Counties in states with weak laws had fewer deaths than expected when surrounding state laws were strong.​

Or not.

But I digress..

This is not what we were discussing. If you could please answer the question in regards to what you so vehemently declared was wrong and, as I quote:

You're totally wrong here. My bolding is what's wrong with it. Small changes, here and there. Reasonable, my ass.

Instead of telling him that he is wrong, over and over again, how about you explain why he is wrong and why such small changes, to things like fire rate and magazine capacity, would be unconstitutional, given the legal precedent that is set already in regards to your Second Amendment..

Thanks.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

You oppose several small, incremental, but reasonable improvements which would help without violating anyone's rights (fire rate and magazine restrictions, example)

for starters, your definition of "reasonable" is your bias. It is not reasonable to me as you've not been able to provide any evidence at all, whatsoever, that they will be:
1. clearly defined
2. not arbitrarily subjective and random
3. functional

That isn't opposition for something that is "reasonable". it is opposition to something that isn't clear, concise, or capable. It's no different than my opposition for H.R.5087.

you support political factions and politicians who are major obstacles in obtaining the the measures you claim to support otherwise (universal background checks, mental health care, etc).

I keep telling yall but ya just don't listen:
I don't support any politician or political faction, Party etc. Nor will I ever.
It's against my religion

that doesn't stop me from discussing this with my REP/SEN, though.

and I have never stated I don't support background checks. I just don't support your arbitrarily named "universal" background checks becuaseit's not clearly defined, nor is there a reason to add stupidity to a functional existing program that is not working because not all states comply. So you're talking about writing a bill and funding it because... why?
how about starting by fixing the existing funding and compliance problem?
or does that make too much sense to you to actually act upon?
C'mon here... we can see where the problems are. We have seen that existing laws are functional and work if enforced and funded (Seattle, Maryland). we have seen where they have failed when not enforced and funded (Waffle House, Florida)... it ain't rocket surgery

You promulgate arguments and policy bases that interfere with with the agenda you claim, in the public discourse.

bullsh*t.
I "promulgate" funding existing law and enforcing it while addressing security issues in schools and promoting personal responsibility with firearms - I haven't deviated from that. You're the one who has blatantly put words in my mouth to make assertions that aren't correct - also known as a false claim or a lie, mind you.

so just because you want to arbitrarily make stuff up doesn't mean my "visible agenda is not as describe, in other words" - that would be another false claim

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

So, can you please explain how and why limiting the fire rate or magazine capacity would infringe on your Constitutional right to bear arms given that even Scalia, in his famous decision in Heller, noted that the rights, conferred by the Second Amendment, were never designed to be unlimited to begin with and that some firearms, such as short barreled shotguns, are rightfully and reasonably banned?

Instead of telling him that he is wrong, over and over again, how about you explain why he is wrong and why such small changes, to things like fire rate and magazine capacity, would be unconstitutional, given the legal precedent that is set already in regards to your Second Amendment..

because they're already limited (the fire rate). They're limited to the time it takes you to pull the trigger, release the trigger to allow it to reengage the mechanism, then pull it again.
Full automatic (AKA Machine Guns) weapons are highly restricted and only under special federal license (already linked BATFE regs)

when you designate limiting the fire rate, you will have to physically inhibit the people, as even a single action can be fired as fast (or faster, with training) as a semi-auto.
Example: Given both of us with the same number of rounds - I can fire more rounds per minute from my M1873 (Colt Single Action Army) than you can from a modern semi-automatic handgun, like the Smith & Wesson M&P (Military and Police).

so there is no clear or concise argument that can apply:
Do you ban single action pistols along with semi-automatics?
or do you break fingers to limit trigger speed? [satirical]

This was addressed in another thread - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-gun-control-solution-perhaps.160629/

If logic were to be followed, we should be equally armed as the police and military as each citizen is potentially a Militia member should the requirement be needed, so we should at the least be allowed to carry the same number of rounds per magazine with the same basic firearms as the military, excepting the fully automatic weapons that are designated per BATFE, linked above.

Keep in mind, as Scalia notes,

keep in mind that Scalia is also a single judge and may not represent the rest of SCOTUS

 

[pjdude1219]

Yep. Great.

Now, instead of saying he is wrong, etc, can you please explain how and why it would be an infringement of your Constitutional rights to reduce magazine capacity or fire rate, for instance?

For example, in Heller, Justice Scalia made a very pertinent point:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

[...]

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.​

So, can you please explain how and why limiting the fire rate or magazine capacity would infringe on your Constitutional right to bear arms given that even Scalia, in his famous decision in Heller, noted that the rights, conferred by the Second Amendment, were never designed to be unlimited to begin with and that some firearms, such as short barreled shotguns, are rightfully and reasonably banned?

Keep in mind, as Scalia notes, and as quoted above, that the Second Amendment does not protect your rights as a citizen to "carry arms for any sort of confrontation". You should also pay particular attention to the last sentence in the second paragraph quoted above, particularly the part about "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms". You know, for good measure.

you always like how the most unreasonable of people want to be the ones who get to determine whats reasonable in the gun debate?

 

[Dr_Toad]

That aside, you still haven't answered the question.

Why do you believe that limiting fire rate or magazine capacity is going to infringe on your Second Amendment rights?

Why don't you see what I said about my pistol holding 12+1? The question was answered.

Using statistical models to compare groups of counties, the researchers found strong firearm laws in a state were associated with lower rates of firearm homicide. Conversely, counties in states with weak gun laws had the highest rates of firearm homicide.

They also discovered that counties in states with weaker gun laws had lower rates of firearm homicide when surrounding states had strong gun laws. This suggests that when a state strengthens its firearms laws, both that state and its neighbors could see protective benefits.

"We thought that because guns can cross state lines, counties in states with restrictive laws might have higher homicide rates if they were near other states with more lenient laws," Kaufman said. "But what we found was somewhat the opposite. Counties in states with weak laws had fewer deaths than expected when surrounding state laws were strong.

What? Again, you've answered your own question. Again.

 

[Bells]

In Caetano:
Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe"

Okay..

And? What does this have to do with what I was discussing with Dr Toad?

Why can't anyone answer such a simple question and why do people keep dodging it by trying to change the subject?

For example, why do you believe that a 100 round magazine, is necessary and why limiting it to say, 10 to 20 rounds (some States have a limit of 20 rounds or less) would be unconstitutional and infringe on your Second Amendment rights?

because they're already limited (the fire rate). They're limited to the time it takes you to pull the trigger, release the trigger to allow it to reengage the mechanism, then pull it again.
Full automatic (AKA Machine Guns) weapons are highly restricted and only under special federal license (already linked BATFE regs)

when you designate limiting the fire rate, you will have to physically inhibit the people, as even a single action can be fired as fast (or faster, with training) as a semi-auto.
Example: Given both of us with the same number of rounds - I can fire more rounds per minute from my M1873 (Colt Single Action Army) than you can from a modern semi-automatic handgun, like the Smith & Wesson M&P (Military and Police).

so there is no clear or concise argument that can apply:
Do you ban single action pistols along with semi-automatics?
or do you break fingers to limit trigger speed? [satirical]

This was addressed in another thread - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-gun-control-solution-perhaps.160629/

I see. Then perhaps you could explain why was legal to modify a semi-automatic?

That’s when a company called Slide Fire Solutions introduced a replacement rifle stock called the SSAR-15 that, for $369, allows you to bump fire your AR-15-style rifle from your shoulder while still retaining accuracy and control. The stock, in the simplest terms, is the part of the rifle you hold and brace against your shoulder. According to the Slide Fire website, “unlike traditional bump firing, the Slidestock allows the shooter to properly hold the firearm and maintain complete control at all times. As a result of the forward movement required to discharge each round, the shooter naturally corrects their point-of-aim for each shot and prevents recoil from pushing the firearm's muzzle upward in an unsafe direction.” Or, as the subhed more concisely puts it, the SSAR-15 lets a shooter “unleash 100 rounds, in 7 seconds.” A product review at a site called Guns America notes that the SSAR-15 “installs in one minute with no special skills.​

Since Las Vegas, this is now falling under the umbrella of regulation.

However, there are other mechanisms that can legally turn a semi-automatic into what is nearly tantamount to an automatic and you can do so legally.

And just so you know, fully automatic weapons are legal if they were manufactured before 1986. That is another loophole.

But again, you also haven't answered the question and instead have chosen to go off on a tangent about fire rate. I was not asking how they work or how they are currently limited (which is clearly problematic, given how quickly people are able to murder others in a very short space of time, hence why the discussion is being had about limiting it further, along with magazine capacity, which is also not what we are discussing, to be honest with you). I am asking how limiting the fire rate and magazine capacity would be unconstitutional and an infringement of your Second Amendment rights, given that those rights are not and were never designed to be unlimited to begin with.

It's a fairly straight forward question. You are now the 3rd person who seems incapable of answering it and who has deigned to change the subject instead of actually answering it.

Why is that?

If logic were to be followed, we should be equally armed as the police and military as each citizen is potentially a Militia member should the requirement be needed, so we should at the least be allowed to carry the same number of rounds per magazine with the same basic firearms as the military, excepting the fully automatic weapons that are designated per BATFE, linked above.

Actually, that would be so far away from "logic", that it should not even bear mentioning.

For example, for you to be equally armed as your police and military force, it would require every potential militia member have access to tanks, armed vehicles, helicopter gun ships, fighter jets, bombs, grenades and all that goes with it.

I mean sure, perhaps you think that your Constitutional rights allow you the right to have a grenade launcher for self protection, but I doubt that even Scalia, the God of all things Second Amendment, would agree. Your Second Amendment rights were never unlimited, it was never designed to be unlimited and has never been interpreted by your Courts to be unlimited.

And just so you know, your Navy Seals, for example, use weapons with less rounds, with the exception of the actual machine gun, then can be bought online by the citizens of the United States. Which means you would be fine with making magazines with 100 round capacity illegal for non-military use, yes?

 

[Dr_Toad]

you always like how the most unreasonable of people want to be the ones who get to determine whats reasonable in the gun debate?

You consider yourself to be reasonable? Dunning-Kruger at its finest.

 

[Bells]

Why don't you see what I said about my pistol holding 12+1? The question was answered.

Yep. I saw it.

But you still did not answer the question. I don't particularly care how many rounds your pistol can hold. That was not what I was asking you.

You said this, in response to iceaura's suggestion of limiting capacity and fire rate:

You're totally wrong here. My bolding is what's wrong with it. Small changes, here and there. Reasonable, my ass.

That is what my question pertains to and you (and others, for that matter), have dodged it and attempted to change the subject.. You tried to tell me how many rounds your pistol holds. That was not what I was asking.

So, can you please answer the question? I mean, you are so vehement that his suggestion is "totally wrong here". You even bolded it to highlight it. But you are yet to actually explain how and why it is wrong and how and why it would infringe on your Second Amendment rights.

I'd really appreciate it if you could actually address the question, instead of going off on tangents about how many rounds your pistol can hold.

Thanks.

 

[Bells]

Oops, missed this:

keep in mind that Scalia is also a single judge and may not represent the rest of SCOTUS

Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority of the court. Do you know what that means? You know, in regards to "the rest of SCOTUS"?

 

[pjdude1219]

I'm so glad I rebelled against my father's wishes and became a technician instead of a lawyer, but that's beside the point.

My pistol has a 12+1 capacity, because if I need to use it defensively, I may need more than one well-placed round to protect or survive. Much different than one round from 100 yards away for hogs or varmints.

If I might remind you, SBS's aren't banned, they're regulated. And here's one that isn't overtaxed: Mossberg 590 Shockwave. Just ship it to your local FFL holder, fill out the 4473 and collect your new firearm.

This?



So what? Nothing argued here has any import on anything but the last bit. Enforce the existing laws in the US by all means, but don't cower in the corner whining about gun violence in the same breath as demanding equality of outcome.

If you want to go full-on communist, then you'll have to either absorb Monsanto and Tracor, Mossberg and Colt, so you can keep the people's working party alive, or you'll have to go NK and just ask everyone (but the ones with lawyers, guns and money) to eat roots and grass,

Anyone not from a shithole urban area in the US has much to worry about from crazy fools with guns, and amazingly enough, most of the shootings happen in urban shitholes where guns are regulated to the point that ordinary people either can't afford or don't have the time to spend on the lengthy process of obtaining a "permit" to protect themselves.

I wonder again why it is that guns in gun-free shitholes are more readily available to criminals?

ah yes the chicago argument. it always makes the people who use it look like idiots, probably because they are; if they persuaded by such a piss poor argument.. you do know a large percentage of guns that go into " urban shitholes" that "overregulate" (read regulate) guns come from places with loose gun laws. loose gun laws enable gun crime just look at Missouri when they had strict gun laws their crime guns a little less than half were from out of state when the loosened their gun laws almost 3 quarters were from in state

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html

 

[Dr_Toad]

Sure, Bells. Twelve rounds in my pistol mag isn't obtrusive, doesn't snag on my clothing, and is available if need it. How the hell does a possum lawyer have a leg to stand on when it comes to what I can or can't do in the US, and why does it matter to you so much that I justify what I think?

And why do you or anyone else care how many rounds my pistol holds? If it were a single stack mag, I could drop the empty and replace it, then keep firing. If the number of rounds is such a sticking point, who's going to take the advantage of the second or two it takes to reload?

The tangent seems to be that no one but hillbillies get it; that you can't take away something that has been a part of our heritage for more than 200 years. Taking magazine capacity down seems to work pretty well in Chicago, doesn't it? Maybe we should move all the ghetto dwellers out into the sticks to clean up the cities?

Edit: pjboi, you're a fool. Stick to arguments with yourself: You'll feel better about winning that way.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I see. Then perhaps you could explain why was legal to modify a semi-automatic?

for that you would have to understand what the word "legal" means:

1. Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law.

https://thelawdictionary.org/legal/

[Emphasis mine, for good cause]

then you would have to understand that BATFE has data on this and it's legality - see website.

BATFE are the ones who regulate firearms so you need to specifically address if you don't like the laws or how they're applied to US citizens
public data (not private rulings) are available on the website.

notes and feedback have already been put out on this: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10801.pdf
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10103.pdf

so, it is possible to modify a semi-automatic legally so long as you use parts that are legal to own, operate etc
as shown by the links above

Since Las Vegas, this is now falling under the umbrella of regulation.

no one said otherwise

And just so you know, fully automatic weapons are legal if they were manufactured before 1986. That is another loophole.

read the law:

If the machinegun was lawfully registered and possessed before May 19, 1986, it may be transferred pursuant to an approved ATF Form 3 or Form 4, as applicable.

[18 U.S.C. 922(o)(2); 26 U.S.C. 5812]

I am asking how limiting the fire rate and magazine capacity would be unconstitutional and an infringement of your Second Amendment rights, given that those rights are not and were never designed to be unlimited to begin with.

It's a fairly straight forward question. You are now the 3rd person who seems incapable of answering it and who has deigned to change the subject instead of actually answering it.

Why is that?

you chose to ignore the answer. Fire rate for a semi-automatic (as described above, becuase I know you aren't knowledgable on the subject) is wholly dependent upon the individual and their ability. Even for a semi-auto (and yes, even with a bump stock).

This specifically means, as I noted in my post using humour, that the only way to address the rate of fire would be to limit the person doing the firing.

Actually, that would be so far away from "logic", that it should not even bear mentioning.

how so?
it is spelled out in the other thread - ya must have missed it.
The logic is simple: all legal able bodied adults are required to register for the selective service
this means that you're liable to be called into service for your local municipality, region, state or nation in the form of Militia for either a last ditch effort to ptorect the nation or to augment it's existing forces, be they LE or Military.

it's all in the linked thread

For example, for you to be equally armed as your police and military force, it would require every potential militia member have access to tanks, armed vehicles, helicopter gun ships, fighter jets, bombs, grenades and all that goes with it.

and again: see BATFE regs for civilians and the linked thread

And just so you know, your Navy Seals, for example, use weapons with less rounds, with the exception of the actual machine gun, then can be bought online by the citizens of the United States. Which means you would be fine with making magazines with 100 round capacity illegal for non-military use, yes?

1- SEAL and other special operations forces utilise the weapon they think will most likely be the most effective during the mission. There is no single weapons system that they use exclusively (as demonstrated even in your link) and they're specially trained for the tactics and weaspons used in said mission. This would be like arguing that because Miyamoto Musashi fought duels and killed with wooden swords then all samurai should be armed with only wooden swords.

2- you didn't read my arguments in the thread. So don't assume I would be fine with anything until you actually read it.

[EDIT]
3- just because standard issue is [x] doesn't mean SEALS use standard issue. They have their own armoury and can make (or buy) modifications from supressors to other enhancements as they see fit

Just a few years prior, MARSOC had updated its pistol inventory, buying thousands of highly modified, single-action .45 caliber 1911 pistols made by Colt. This gun is known as the M45A1

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-navy-seals-may-have-selected-a-new-pistol-of-choice-1749620057
[END EDIT]

Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority of the court. Do you know what that means? You know, in regards to "the rest of SCOTUS"?

do you know what "died February 13, 2016" means?

interpretation of [x] in SCOTUS in the past doesn't mean it will always be interpreted as [x] in the future (or even now)
do you know what that means?

 

[pjdude1219]

You consider yourself to be reasonable? Dunning-Kruger at its finest.

yes. because unlike you and your general shitposting ,seriously do you anything other than shitpost, i dont take an extremist point of view. if you'd actually bother to learn and understand my point of view you'd learn it actually far more permissive and nuanced than your rather probably fucked up strawman. while i do not believe in the rewrite of the second amendment from heller and do not believe the second amendment was ever to provide an individual right to gun for personal use and that most gun control is permitted, i have zero problems with gun ownership. I just wish it to be responsible. i take offense to the current culture which treats them as toys like you and stumpy do. you may not personally treat them as toys but you actively aid and abet the culture that does. take for example the bushmaster ar-15 mancard ad. i doubt either of you had a problem with that but culturly that is a huge problem.


also if you'd support my beliefs and your as responsible as you claim( which i doubt), you have legal access to more things use. full auto guns, mortars, or hell a 14 pounder, just be responsible. i take issue with people like you because you argue essentially for a right to irresponsibility, and that is just nuts to apply that to a lethal weapon. american treat their rights with contempt and that is a dangerous attitude to have toward a lethal weapon.

my biggest reason for being a gun control advocate because any reasonable person can see we cant handle the responsibility of being an armed society. i've met people who i thought could handle the responsibility of owning a tank with operational cannon, ive also met people who could be trusted with safety scissors that the fact they hadn't accidently killed any body with their guns was proof of a kind and loving god.

 

[pjdude1219]

Sure, Bells. Twelve rounds in my pistol mag isn't obtrusive, doesn't snag on my clothing, and is available if need it. How the hell does a possum lawyer have a leg to stand on when it comes to what I can or can't do in the US, and why does it matter to you so much that I justify what I think?

And why do you or anyone else care how many rounds my pistol holds? If it were a single stack mag, I could drop the empty and replace it, then keep firing. If the number of rounds is such a sticking point, who's going to take the advantage of the second or two it takes to reload?

The tangent seems to be that no one but hillbillies get it; that you can't take away something that has been a part of our heritage for more than 200 years. Taking magazine capacity down seems to work pretty well in Chicago, doesn't it? Maybe we should move all the ghetto dwellers out into the sticks to clean up the cities?

Edit: pjboi, you're a fool. Stick to arguments with yourself: You'll feel better about winning that way.

like i care what a spoiled manchild thinks of me. go play with your toys hopefuilly you wont kill anybody. keep shit posting its not like you can refute the argument its why you shitpost instead of you know trying to present anysort of meaningful argument.

oh and alter peoples usernames in an insulting manner is against the forum rules.

 

[pjdude1219]

Oops, missed this:


Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority of the court. Do you know what that means? You know, in regards to "the rest of SCOTUS"?

no he doesn't.

 

[Dr_Toad]

also if you'd support my beliefs and your as responsible as you claim( which i doubt), you have legal access to more things use.

Learn to speak English, would you? I know, that's going to be really tough, so take as long as you like..