@Rene Descartes This is the only part of your post I would address, as it has already occurred. What was done was to vaguely describe that ALL rifles of military appearance are banned. (California). Initially, there was a specific list. That was circumvented by carefully re-structuring appearance, name, and features, thus making "legal" again exactly the same type of rifles. That loop-hole was filled quickly. So, if every possible type of gun is specifically banned, without regard to any other characterization, they would be able to ban virtually all guns. Frank
@Rene Descartes Your post reminded me of the Jenny Jones "dilemma". I saw it unfold on live TV. Two young men sat side by side, Scott Amedure and Jonathon Schmitz. Amedure attempted to become amorous, and Schmitz reacted completely surprised, as though un-rehearsed, saying, "I am not gay", or something to that effect. Schmitz wound up killing Amedure later. See below: "On an episode called "Same-Sex Secret Crushes" taped on March 6, 1995, a gay man named Scott Amedure confessed his love for an acquaintance, Jonathan Schmitz. While on the show, Schmitz reacted with laughter. Three days after the show's taping, Schmitz killed Amedure. He was later convicted of second degree murder and received a sentence of 25–50 years in prison. Amedure's family then sued the producers of The Jenny Jones Show, saying they should have known about Schmitz's history of mental illness. In interviews, Jones said the producers told Schmitz that his admirer could be a man, but Schmitz thought that the admirer was a woman. Jones also said that the show didn't want Schmitz to know the outcome of his secret crush. Amedure's family won the initial ruling, and the show was ordered to pay them $25 million.The verdict was later overturned by the Michigan appellate court." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Jones_(presenter)#Controversy
It comes down to semi-automatic rifles/weapons (military-style weapons). "U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton sided with the state a few weeks ago, saying: "Even an outright ban on certain types of semiautomatic weapons does not substantially burden the Second Amendment right." (2018) The 2nd amendment grants people the right to own a gun, but it does not say people can own any gun they want. The Constitution grants Congress the right to say what type of guns a person can own. Since AR15 and AK47 type weapons have been used in the last...every mass shooting dating back to 1982 involved the use of a semi-automatic firearm. How fast can a person kill as many people as possible depends on how fast that person can pull the trigger. When killers have magazines that hold 50 to 60 rounds and a well-exercised pointer finger...the Dayton shooter had a 100 round magazine and killed 10 people in 30 seconds. If the cops had not shot him, imagine how many people would have died, and for what? So people with big egos can spout look at my gun--it can kill 100 people in under 5 minutes. What is the point of having that weapon? To kill deer? Only a horrible hunter needs a semi-automatic weapon, and he should probably take up fishing instead. To justify why these types of weapons should stay legal, you need to justify the use for them. Banning these will in no way impact the 2nd amendment. James Madison never said... God curse the soul who dares to take my Russian/Chinese made semi-automatic weapon from me! Now, if you have a military-type weapon that is not an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, you have no worries.
@Rene Descartes We do have a few worries, as most military-style long-guns of small caliber are indeed select-fire (full and semi). I can think offhand of none that are not. To our benefit, many military-style rifles are/have been made in semi-auto only, to satisfy certain training needs, and many of those reached the civilian market. Frank
This was precisely my point when I posted about Australia's worst mass shooting The Port Arthur Massacre in 1996 and the banning of all semi- automatic military style weapons. That and pump-action shotguns were the only weapons banned.. only weapons that fired multi rounds and caused the greatest maiming in the shortest time. To my knowledge in the 23 years since Australia has not a mass shooting recurrence... certainly one not involving an semi-automatic weapon. So it worked for us. I am betting if you asked Mr or Mrs Middle America if they objected to the banning of all military style weapons.. a majority would say yes.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that Craig. I am thinking that most if not all of us US citizens posting here with the exception of maybe two,would absolutely and proudly and accurately claim the title of Mr. or Mrs. Middle America. I haven't seen an obvious outlier yet on this board ,I,m saying we are fairly representative of the US as a whole.
That should have read " a majority would say NO as they do NOT object to the banning". Sorry to mislead. Rather than Middle America should have said the "silent majority"?
@Craig Swanson Not a problem, as we seem to have adopted here universally, though I hate it; waitress, store clerk, no matter who, says "no problem". Are they doing it down under? I hate it! Oh, the post! My answer stands. Franl