re: Relying on a branch to government to decide if you have a right that threatens government

And, from a Constitutional standpoint it would be more legitimate to ban all firearms other than rifles than to just ban rifles.

That is how upside down this is.

I mean, we started shooting redcoats because they were coming to disarm the militia FFS...

quote:

---

You believe we won't have mass shootings if we suddenly get rid of firearms (which is impossible) and you might be right. However we would still have the same exact death toll per year. The idiots would resort to a different weapon. Bombs, vehicles, fire, knives all very capable of killing dozens. Take your head out of your arse.

---

Then why is there a ban on fully automatic weapons? You're an idiot and your still incorrect on the stats, compare the body counts.

quote:

---

All we have between us and them is Heller. Heller was 5-4. If Heller were to be heard today, it would be 5-4.

---

There's an equal case before them right now but New York is trying to weasel out of it bc they know it's could be bigger than Heller bc it could do away with gun permits essentially. it could properly judicially establish the right to carry as the 2nd A says. Heller intentionally only applied to homes.

quote:

---

Then why is there a ban on fully automatic weapons? You're an idiot and your still incorrect on the stats, compare the body counts.

---

You can purchase fully automatic weapons dumbass.

Im comparing the body counts in Australia moron. Go look at Australia's mass killings list before and after the ban. An average of 5 deaths per mass killing both before and after the ban. Not a goddamn thing changed. They took their guns away over a single mass shooting that killed 35 and injured 24. Before that incident they still weren't using guns for every massacre.

It's a fricking lie to claim that Australia gun laws worked when they only had a single mass shooting of that magnitude in their entire history. They had a shooting this year that resulted in the same average they always have.

quote:

---

Wrong again. They are prohibited, the only ones you can buy are in existing circulation before the law took effect, require a special permit that is extremely difficult to get approved for and also since you are likely purchasing an antique and rare collectible weapon it will be extremely expensive. What you absolutely can't do is go to your local gun shop and purchase a new fully automatic weapon.

Nice try tho. The truth is your 2nd ammendment is already very infringed upon and for very good reason, most sane people would agree with the logic behind this and its perfectly sensible to apply the same logic to additional weapons capable of inflicting higher body counts in shorter periods of time.

---

You can purchase any fully automatic firearm produced before 1986 since that's when the bill was passed. You want a Rambo 2 M-60 machine gun? You can buy it.

Ive been to the range where a guy had 2 fully automatic firearms with his permit. One was a full auto AK 47, the other was an old Frankenstein firearm. I shot both.

It's not hard to get a permit. It's fricking expensive as shite to buy a decent fully automatic rifle. About $35k minimum. Uzi and smaller weapons can be had for much less.

You can bet your arse if it wasn't for price, everyone would own full auto firearms. Since we can't everyone just buys multiple AR 15s or builds them for a few hundred bucks. It's America buddy. frick you and frick Yea

quote:

---

Yes. Obviously.

---

OK, please just tell me what you're looking for that would be a fair comparison. I don't understand the hair you are trying to split here.