@firefly,
firefly wrote:Has it ever occurred to you that the term "assault weapon" can, and should, be re-defined?
If it ever gets re-defined, then I'll work with the new definition.
But as for now, I'll work with the definition that defines what you are currently trying to ban.
And chances are, even if there is any meaningful redefining, there will still be no reason to ban anything.
firefly wrote:The capacity of these military-style weapons, to kill and wound many people rapidly, is not a "harmless cosmetic feature"
Assault weapons do not have any greater capacity of killing people than do non-assault weapons.
firefly wrote:--these weapons are designed for that purpose, to be efficient killing machines--and they are designed to be used in combat.
Stop making things up. Having harmless cosmetic features does not mean a gun was designed for combat.
firefly wrote:There is no rational reason for these types of weapons to be available to any civilian who wants them--
Yes there is. The fact that there is no reason to ban harmless cosmetic features, makes for a very rational reason to not ban them.
Another rational reason would be that the courts would simply strike down the ban.
firefly wrote:As Justice Scalia has already pointed out, certain types of dangerous weapons--dangerous to the general population--can be limited.
Having harmless cosmetic features does not make a gun any more dangerous than it already is.
firefly wrote:Just because a gun manufacturer wants to make money by peddling these military-type weapons, or high capacity ammunition clips, to our civilian population , does not mean they should be allowed to do so if that poses an unreasonable danger to our general population.
Having harmless cosmetic features does not make a gun a military type weapon.
And harmless cosmetic features do not pose an unreasonable danger (or any danger at all) to anyone.
firefly wrote:Limiting the availability of these weapons, or certain types of ammunition, is a restriction on the manufacturer and distributor, and not on the alleged "rights" of gun owners.
Wrong again. Preventing people from owning a gun that they have a Constitutional right to own if they so choose, violates their rights.
And your dislike of the Constitution does not make the rights therein "alleged".
firefly wrote:Again, as Justice Scalia noted, the "right to bear arms" does not mean unrestricted access to any and all weapons which might be available now, or in the future.
No one said otherwise. It does however mean that Americans have the right to own assault weapons.
It also means Americans have the right to carry guns when they go about in public, even in our largest cities. (You're going to be hearing from Scalia on that score real soon now.)
firefly wrote:It definitely does not confer on gun manufacturers and distributors any "right" to freely make available any product which poses an unreasonable danger to the public, any more than a drug manufacturer can sell a pharmaceutical product with too high a risk of endangering the public, or an auto manufacturer can sell a car with an unacceptable risk of becoming a death trap.
Harmless cosmetic features do not pose any danger at all to the public.
firefly wrote:The products we allow for sale must not pose an unacceptable risk to public safety, they must not imperil "the general welfare" --and, the government's job is to institute controls to insure that.
Harmless cosmetic features do not pose any risk to public safety, nor do they imperil the general welfare.
firefly wrote:The conversation about solutions to our problem with gun violence must include looking at the types of weapons, and ammunition, we allow in circulation, in terms of the danger they pose to the general welfare, with an aim toward restricting the potential damage to the general population as much as possible--just as we would do with any other products we allow for sale on the market.
You might want to note that the House
Democrats have decided to side with the NRA on the issue of assault weapons.
firefly wrote:Secondarily, we should implement and enforce much better control and regulation over the purchase of all guns. The problem with gun violence in this country is not only insane, it's a national disgrace, and the time to address it is long overdue. Responsible gun owners and enthusiasts recognize that, and also realize some compromises must be made.
There will be no compromising on the Second Amendment. You will not be allowed to violate it.
