The combination of ignorance and confidence is jaw dropping.
Assault rifles are machine guns. I think you mean assault weapon. Easy enough mistake.
What is all this nonsense about easy conversion to fully automatic. I don’t think you know wtf you are talking about. If you file down the firing pin in ANY semi-automatic gun (including lots of hunting rifles) the gun will go full automatic but not like you think. In a machine gun, if you pull the trigger the bullets start firing and will stop firing when you release the trigger. If you file down the firing pin, when you pull the trigger the bullets start firing and you really have no control over when they stop firing.
Machine guns are not really a good argument for your side.
In what world is an AR-15 and AK-47s good for little else other than being converted to full automatic (BTW Bushmater is the name of a manufacturer, like Colt, its not a type of gun). It seems like you are long on opinions and emotion and really short on facts and knowledge.
These are not the only machine gun deaths but the machine guns deaths account for such a teeny tiny fraction of overall deaths.
The notion that you would hold someone who has committed no crime criminally liable for the actions of others is nonsense.
The notion that you would hold someone crimianlly liable for a gun that is stolen from them regardless of what precautions they took is beyond nonsense.
It is a constitutional right with no less constitutional protection that the right to freedom of the press and free speech. If you want to start undermining constitutional rights because you don’t like this ONE constitutional right then you really can’t complain if someone comes along and tries to undermine the ones you like. If you don’t think n it should be a constitutional right then it is up to YOUR side to get 2/3rds of each house and 3/4ths of the states to repeal the second amendment.
Whinging about an omnipotent gun rights lobby just makes you look ineffective and weak. There is nothing special about the NRa other than the fact that there are a lot of folks who are otherwise apathetic voters who will go to the polls if someone is fucking with their gun rights.
No, your ignorance makes you ignorant. And in a democracy I don’t really have to give a shit about one person’s world view, especially if that person’s world view is informed by a whole lot of ignorance that the person doesn’t seem to want to remedy.
Yes I’m pretty sure that the limit you are talking about does not exist.
Well if they were only going to let one person have all the guns then I would have a problem with that too.
WTF!!! So you think constitutional rights should be subject to local standards? Jim Crow would like to have a word with you.
And THERE it is. Conflating gun owners with criminals. Its pretty much why you don’t give a shit about the rights of gun owners because they are virtually criminals anyway just by owning a gun.
Lots of emotion not a lot of knowledge. A potent brew.
That really just sounds like you want to fuck with gun owners.
the chances of passing a law like that are much MUCH lower than licensing and registration (which would do the same thing) but you want to punish gun owners and fuck with them.
This is incredibly ignorant. Anonymity in speech has been expressly protected - see SCOTUS cases Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, among others.
Unless you are the subject of reasonable suspicion, you are not required to divulge your identity or be subject to search.
It’s kind of silly to suggest you can exercise your fifth amendment rights anonymously. How would that even work?
In summary, your post is a poorly conceived counter point.
My point is that you have weaseled away from giving an answer to my question.
Do you have any objection to forcing Jews to identify themselves by wearing yellow stars before they can exercise their freedom of religion?
Whether you choose to identify yourself blatantly before you exercise some of your rights has no bearing on whether you think it is acceptable to force other people to do so.
So, now, can I have an honest answer to my question?
Godwin’s Law, much? Of course it’s wrong to force Jews to wear a yellow star. In this country, the way most people exercise their freedom of religion is to attend a very public religious service. I’m not even sure how you would go about exercising your freedom of religion anonymously–is Bokononism a thing now? Are Santeria cults more widespread than I’ve been led to believe?
You’re asserting the right to anonymously own, possess and carry firearms. Not sure where you think this right emanates from, but no, I don’t think you have such a right. If any of your guns have a serial number that’s filed off or traceable to anyone but you, you’re weasely and dishonest if you claim it’s legitimate.
True. And unless the First Amendment has been rewritten recently, ink is not directly addressed.
But I suspect, if the government tried to control the press by banning ink unless it was used for printing approved material only, you’d assert that the First Amendment was violated.
The point is, there is no way to exercise the 5th anonymously so there is no counterfactual. Your other points about the first and fourth have already been shown to be false. You were wrong. Do you see that now?
“Freedom of the Press” and “Freedom of Speech” still mean essentially the same thing today that they meant in the 1780s, and are applied much the same way to new media as they have been to old. Although the First Amendment didn’t mention things like “radio” or “the internet,” the intent of the authors was clear enough that subsequent lawmakers understood political and other discourse on new media to be protected.
“The right to bear arms” is different. Semi- and converted full-automatic rifles with large capacity ammunition clips weren’t anticipated by George Mason and company in 1787, and neither were the kind of mass shootings we’ve seen in the last 20-30 years. The Supreme Court needs to address what the Second Amendment means in the modern age.