No it isn’t.
You’re right, it isn’t subjective.
Harms are easily definable and measurable.
Assault rifles are already heavily restricted/banned, it’s the semi-automatic rifles that you want to ban that are the problem for most of us.
4 Likes
Is an “assault” rifle more dangerous than another type of firearm?
What makes an AR-15 different than an M1A?
It’s got that… uh…ummmm…you know, the thing!
1 Like
It’s black and plastic.
Authoritarian libs are judging something by its appearance. Something they stress to us less evolved types is horribly wrong.
2 Likes
They think it’s magic.
1 Like
Maybe that’s it.
2 Likes
It’s an utterly asinine premise.
The weapon is behind the trigger, not attached to it.
Someone who is marginally competent can get off a well aimed round every 2 seconds with a bolt action rifle.
Someone who is exceptional can get off a well aimed shot with the same rifle about once per second or less.
2 Likes
High capacity semi autos have been around now for more than 130 years.
It’s not like we’re talking about laser pistols/rifles that have unlimited batter packs that won’t be developed for another 2 centuries.
You must be confused.
I made no mention of the dangers of any “firearm”. I used assault rifles as an example. Maybe I should just use “firearm”
Any firearm can be banned for any reason. 2A does not guarantee you can have ANY firearm manufactured. Just that you can bear arms.
Only if you completely ignore the 2nd Amendment and thankfully we now own the judiciary for at least the next three or four decades so that isn’t remotely possible.
1 Like
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Please list some other rights that citizens have to pay to exercise.
2 Likes
Freedom to assemble. (ie; If you want to assemble on public property for the purpose of a rally or protest, a lot of municipalities require an application fee for a permit along with deposits, cost of clean-up, and cost of added security or police)
I agree with this example. And it to is not right.
But for the sake of the debate, we allow localities and states to often restrict rights the federal is not allowed to.
For example: Kalifornia, Chicago, Hawaii, New York, and DC, have restrictions on firearms that would be tossed out on their ear if they were ever attempted at the federal level.
Back to your original example: permitting fees and “protest zones” are examples of first amendment violations that should also be tossed out just like the above named localities firearm restrictions.
3 Likes
Go ahead and hang your hat on that if it makes you feel good then read the rest of the decision.
We can’t carry an AR into a courtroom or prison, that was never in question to begin with.
Only if the gathering is large enough to create traffic/safety problems etc.
Again the exercise of rights ends when it interferes with the rights of others to do such things as freely travel the public roads, sidewalks etc.
It’s the same reason by which the “flash protests” blocking streets, highways, interstates etc are unlawful. They create a public safety hazard and infringe on the rights of others.
Many of them have been for example Hawaii’s effective ban on lawful carry was tossed.
I remember hearing that.
I also remember hearing that it was still almost impossible to get a permit there. I didn’t verify it so I could be wrong on that.
