Same as any other such law.
not sure I agree, though some laws are such.
most laws are based on the culture's morality or sense of fairness. This is best demonstrated by current US equality laws, IMHO. The constitution was vague enough to consider all men equal but we've had to clarify it to include race, gender, etc and we're pushing to provide protections of equality under the law for LGBT. That in no way is punishment of the masses due to the actions of a few, though it was instigated by the stupidity of a few. That is
protection of people's rights and punative only to those who break the law, which is the same of the bulk of the laws, especially those that are supportive of the Constitutionally protected rights.
which brings it back to the 2nd amendment - there are existing laws that are quite effective. This is best demonstrated by the WA prevented school shooting. So the failure that lead to the FL shooting means it's directly due to lack of enforcement.
Given this point, then enactment of restrictive laws based upon arbitrary cosmetics and the random assignment of a number of rounds to a magazine is irrational, especially considering the targeting of "assault weapons" is wholly due to the failure of the system to actually enforce the law in certain places. That enactment would in no way be protecting anyone else's right whatsoever. It's purely punitive and it directly attacks law abiding citizens for the purpose of restrictions due to ignorance of the criminal statistics.
I believe the punishments written into the law will be reserved for those who break it. That's the normal policy.
that is where the problem lies. The production of a law like H.R. 5087 isn't about punishing those who break the law. It's reactive, for starters, and that's never a good thing to do, as demonstrated by other reactionary laws (Example: laws requiring automobile owners to hide or even dismantle cars when horses pass). It's design is to limit the ability of everyone access to a firearm strictly because of cosmetic and irrational fears.
A law that is reserved for those who break it doesn't actively punish existing people. And making a new gas operated semi-automatic platform would punish users and manufacturers alike and would only lead to others actively attempting to ban it due to irrational fears and ignorance.
I still think that producing a new law would be illogical considering the existing shootings tend to predominantly be due to lack of enforcement of existing laws. it's just one more law to not enforce that may confuse the issue.
Yep.
And with good cause, majority support, etc.
sorry, there is not "good cause", nor majority support, otherwise 5087 would have been passed unanimously
the good cause is to stop school shootings and protect the nations children. There is no rational reason to target a weapon that is
normally not used to kill the nations children or shoot up a school. That would be like banning Ramen noodles because pasta makes people fat.
No one has ever stopped a charging grizzly bear because they had a high capacity magazine, nor ever will (barring a full automatic). No one ever has or ever will need a high capacity magazine to defend themselves from predators - or even the more dangerous moose, hogs, and cacti, that threaten their wellbeing in the wilderness. That's a cartoon fantasy.
assumption based upon ignorance and fear.
Just because you're a city boy doesn't mean your reality is true everywhere
like I said, your argument comes from fear, irrational beliefs and ignorance. You are adopting the perspective of a person who is middle or upper middle class living in a relatively safe community where the expectation is that LE is capable of protecting you. In rural areas the response times are exceptionally long, even when you're living in a town. This is due to the lack of enforcement statements I've been making because funding and resources are limited. You are literally making an argument from ignorance simply because you can't comprehend rural living.
Three of the four weapons carried at Columbine were illegal, and available only via lax enforcement of the law. As were the pipe bombs.
and again, enforcement was the issue. thank you
Are we to assess laws against sawed off shotguns and pipe bombs as futile because they can, with effort, be broken - because they "punish" only the law-abiding?
this is demonstrative of laws that were passed due to a high rate of misuse. IOW - they had demonstrated precedent (starting in the Prohibition era). It was not banned being used in 1% or less of crimes, it was a favourite of criminals as it was easily concealed, deadly in close quarters and readily available with the purchase of a shotgun and a hacksaw. The sawed off was (and still is) popular as a concealed weapon for crime.
More importantly, Sawed off shotguns are not illegal unless they're too short (barrel less than 18 inches), so they're restricted, not illegal (
BATFE)
Pipe bombs are also not illegal. they're
restricted. Rural people regularly manufacture and use these to remove stumps, etc, and for other purposes (crop protection comes to mind)
