Guns: how much longer will it take ....

U.S. Preference for Stricter Gun Laws Highest Since 1993
by Jeffrey M. Jones, MARCH 14, 2018, Gallup

It's like the percentage of people who would like to live in the north pole or be captured by ISIS.

So you among those 4% of Americans asking for less gun regulation. Okay.

It is the same as the percent of gays, or whatever, in our population. Not enough to matter, right?

1its real cheap

That's not how the Constitution works.

It doesn't matter if we can use other guns. It matters that you cannot justify the ban with a good reason.

Addressing the plaintiffs’ Second
Amendment claims under the Supreme Court’s decision in District
of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the district court
expressed grave doubt that the banned assault weapons and largecapacity
magazines are constitutionally protected arms.
Nevertheless, the court ultimately assumed that the FSA
implicates the Second Amendment and subjected it to the
“intermediate scrutiny” standard of review. In the wake of
Heller, four of our sister courts of appeals have also rejected
Second Amendment challenges to bans on assault weapons and
large-capacity magazines, including two (the Second and District
of Columbia Circuits) that utilized an analysis similar to the
district court’s.

We begin with the plaintiffs’ claims that the FSA’s assault
weapons ban and its prohibition against large-capacity magazines
contravene the Second Amendment. According to the plaintiffs,
they are entitled to summary judgment on the simple premise that
the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are
protected by the Second Amendment and, thus, the FSA is
unconstitutional per se. We conclude, to the contrary, that the
banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not
constitutionally protected arms.

You've openly stated that these court rulings are not being offered as backing for your arguments.

sceletera wrote:

This appears to be a variant of an AR-15. As such it can be banned without violating the US Constitution.

That is incorrect. The lack of any good reason to ban it makes such a ban unconstitutional.

Simply put, AR-15-type rifles are “like” M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term. See, e.g., Webster’s New International Dictionary 1431 (2d ed. 1948) (defining “like” as “[h]aving the same, or nearly the same, appearance, qualities, or characteristics; similar”); The New Oxford American Dictionary 982 (2d ed. 2005) (defining “like” as “having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to”). Although an M16 rifle is capable of fully automatic fire and the AR-15 is limited to semiautomatic fire, their rates of fire (two seconds and as little as five seconds, respectively, to empty a thirtyround magazine) are nearly identical. Moreover, in many situations, the semiautomatic fire of an AR-15 is more accurate and lethal than the automatic fire of an M16. Otherwise, the AR-15 shares the military features — the very qualities and characteristics — that make the M16 a devastating and lethal weapon of war. In any event, we need not rely solely on dictionary definitions, because Heller itself expounds on what it means to be “like” the M16. As the plaintiffs would have it, Heller drew a “bright line” between fully automatic and semiautomatic firearms, and thus the AR-15 cannot be considered “like” the M16 for purposes of the Second Amendment. That contention is baseless, however, because Heller did not restrict the meaning of “M-16 rifles and the like” to only fully automatic weapons. Rather, Heller described “M-16 rifles and the like” more broadly, specifically identifying them as being those “weapons that are most useful in military service.” Therefore, we identify the line that Heller drew as not being between fully 49 automatic and semiautomatic firearms, but between weapons that are most useful in military service and those that are not.11 Whatever their other potential uses — including selfdefense — the AR-15, other assault weapons, and large-capacity magazines prohibited by the FSA are unquestionably most useful in military service. That is, the banned assault weapons are designed to “kill[] or disabl[e] the enemy” on the battlefield. See J.A. 735. The very features that qualify a firearm as a banned assault weapon — such as flash suppressors, barrel shrouds, folding and telescoping stocks, pistol grips, grenade launchers, night sights, and the ability to accept bayonets and large-capacity magazines — “serve specific, combat-functional ends.” See id. at 1120. And, “[t]he net effect of these military combat features is a capability for lethality — more wounds, more serious, in more victims — far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns.” Id. at 1121-22.

Because the banned assault weapons and large-capacity
magazines are clearly most useful in military service, we are
compelled by Heller to recognize that those weapons and
magazines are not constitutionally protected.