don't you think you should understand what makes a weapon efficient before arguing on this topic? at what point does efficiency give the government the power to ban weapons that are not unusually dangerous? what is the number of rounds in a magazine where that threshold is reached?
He thinks all guns should be banned from being owned by citizens. He wants felons and the government to be the only groups with firearms
Unless you're suggesting to confiscate every firearm in the US your argument is just silly.
Yeah no gun no shooting, just hacked up with a knife, chopped up with an ax or maybe just your head smashed in with a pipe.
Actually, there is no mention of regulating firearms in the Second Amendment. However, there is a mention of the right that "shall not be infringed" by government. You must be reading that imaginary leftist US Constitution again, not the real one.
You can not in any way support this assertion.
it's not possible to ban them from private ownership. they are the most popular rifle made today and are thus precluded from infringement by the 2nd amendment.
the main argument against laws that prevent honest people from owning guns as crime control is that those laws don't disarm criminals
yes
Is a statement you can in no way support.
no it isn't. The constitution precludes you from doing so.
yes.
common usage is. They are the most commonly used rifles in existence. They are precluded by the constitution from being banned.
You can not support the claim of "saturation levels".
your argument does. You can in no way support it.
specifically and unequivocally precludes you. Caetano, Heller, McDonald
better let the supreme court know that, lol. Caetano, Heller, McDonald.
well given the Supreme court noted that "in common use" (which is a flawed attitude but controlling) that is important
no it doesn't. It's only the number of firearms in circulation. You can not support a claim of saturation.
Correct. But your claim of saturation does. You can not support it.
Supreme court has already shown you otherwise.
no, what the supreme court held was that firearms in common use that are not unusually dangerous, cannot be banned. Thomas and Scalia later noted that semi auto rifles with magazines meet both tests. Scalia also admitted that the flaw in this reasoning was new weapons that should be covered, could be immediately banned, when developed and thus the government could get around the restriction. Several have argued, that if civilian police are using the weapon, that puts it in COMMON USE.
credible proof required for that positive assertion as to saturation. That people continue to buy firearms at a fast pace, belies your opinion
You are lying. Unusually dangerous weapons are not ones that the police should have. And you prove you don't have a clue about firearms when you make a comment that stupid
