# On an assault weapon ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2016, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469 "2016-06-15T22:04:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/421 "2016-06-29T18:49:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But don’t fully automatic weapons all fall into these categories – isn’t their “level of danger greater than what is typical from an otherwise normal weapon” (a normal weapon being a typical semi-auto handgun, hunting rifle, or shotgun)? And aren’t they both unusual and not in common use (outside of the military – which can also be said for grenades, artillery, etc.)? When analyzing what is covered, the typical layout of an ordinary person in the military can be a reasonable guide. For items carried upon the person, select fire weapons are not unusual, nor do they present an elevated level of danger. They are also in common use. Poison gas does not fit this criteria. Landmines do not fit this criteria. Missiles, RPGs, artillery etc. do not fit this criteria. Grenades may - but I would leave it to the military to describe what is the standard layout for their personnel. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/422 "2016-06-29T18:55:19Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > When analyzing what is covered, the typical layout of an ordinary person in the military can be a reasonable guide. For items carried upon the person, select fire weapons are not unusual, nor do they present an elevated level of danger. They are also in common use. Poison gas does not fit this criteria. Landmines do not fit this criteria. Missiles, RPGs, artillery etc. do not fit this criteria. Grenades may - but I would leave it to the military to describe what is the standard layout for their personnel. But why is an ordinary military person the “reasonable guide” as opposed to an ordinary police officer, or an ordinary hunter/sportsman, or ordinary citizen? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/423 "2016-06-29T19:02:12Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But why is an ordinary military person the “reasonable guide” as opposed to an ordinary police officer, or an ordinary hunter/sportsman, or ordinary citizen? Why do you think it’s not? Do you think it’s not? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/424 "2016-06-29T19:12:24Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Why do you think it’s not? Do you think it’s not? I know why it is, from the framers perspective, but I’m unsure whether that’s still a valid metric today, given the changes that have transpired between then and now. This is where, IMHO, the Constitution has to be a living document that reflects an ever changing society. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/425 "2016-06-29T19:40:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Why do you think it’s not? Do you think it’s not? I would think an ordinary person would be a much better measure as to what is in “common use” – after all, ordinary citizens are far more “common” than soldiers. By that measure, semi-auto handguns, revolvers, hunting rifles, and shotguns are all in “common use”, I think, but automatic weapons are not. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/426 "2016-06-29T20:14:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I would think an ordinary person would be a much better measure as to what is in “common use” – after all, ordinary citizens are far more “common” than soldiers. By that measure, semi-auto handguns, revolvers, hunting rifles, and shotguns are all in “common use”, I think, but automatic weapons are not. Ok - do you have a basis for that construction of “common use”? Below is my take on it, though I grant it is merely my opinion and in this post I venture into speculative territory. The scope of the 2nd hasn’t been fully litigated so I think it could go either way. The way I look at the framework is that there are two paths by which a weapon can fall under the umbrella of the 2nd amendment. **Path 1** : weapons that would be typical for a person in the military This is consistent with Miller but this view has not been tested. As the prefatory clause announces a purpose of the operative clause, utilization in a military function seems to square with this understanding in Miller, and is not precluded by Heller. \*\* Path 2:\*\* Weapons that are in common use, and are not both dangerous _and_ unusual Here a reasonable guide would be the bearable arms available to police. Their need for self defense is without question and anything that enhances the self defense of these persons should be available to all persons. Here is what Heller says about my path 1: > [@](#): > > We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25 > > … > > It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. From this, if it can be shown that law abiding citizens possess for lawful purposes select fire weapons, then I would argue they fall under the auspices of both #1 and #2 above. There are still near 500K machine guns, most of which are not allowed to be transferred. And since the rate of crime with those are virtually non-existent, I’d say they are in common use for lawful purposes. This also doesn’t count any select fire weapons in police use. Note above doesn’t say that M-16’s may be banned - it says that “if they may be banned…”. The full scope of the 2nd has not yet been resolved. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/427 "2016-06-29T21:30:18Z")
Does “select-fire” imply automatic? I thought “select-fire” just meant at least two modes of fire, which could include safety and semi-auto, and thus most semi-auto handguns are “select-fire”. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/428 "2016-06-29T21:37:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Does “select-fire” imply automatic? I thought “select-fire” just meant at least two modes of fire, which could include safety and semi-auto, and thus most semi-auto handguns are “select-fire”. Select fire means you can select between semi-automatic mode and full automatic mode (and in some cases burst, which usually fires a 3 round burst and is actually more useful than full automatic). No, most handguns aren’t select fire…I think what you are talking about is the safety, and a lot of guns have them. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/429 "2016-06-29T21:56:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Does “select-fire” imply automatic? I thought “select-fire” just meant at least two modes of fire, which could include safety and semi-auto, and thus most semi-auto handguns are “select-fire”. Select fire means the ability to select between semi auto (one round per trigger pull) and some iteration of multiple rounds per trigger pull (full auto or burst). Like [this](http://i.imgur.com/edGDTC1.jpg) or [this](http://static---zephyrsports.app-hosted.com/media/img/zephyrsports/-/tip/tippmann_a5_egrip_select_fire_trigger_frame_001.jpg) or [this](https://s3.amazonaws.com/mgm-content/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2015/01/30/3974924_05_usm4_mode_3_select_fire_ar_15__640.jpg). Of course, the lower is just a piece of metal and any creative thing can be engraved. If you are into pirates, [this could be more suitable](https://4b1e874935ea5d25a97e-f099844d0e354c7ab50c55a966be6870.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/product/F1STSLCJackX1.jpg). It does mean two modes of fire, but “safety” is not one of them. ETA: ninja’d. Spent too much time looking at that pirate lower. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/430 "2016-06-29T22:08:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I would think an ordinary person would be a much better measure as to what is in “common use” – after all, ordinary citizens are far more “common” than soldiers. By that measure, semi-auto handguns, revolvers, hunting rifles, and shotguns are all in “common use”, I think, but automatic weapons are not. By automatic do you mean full auto? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/431 "2016-06-29T22:09:41Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > By automatic do you mean full auto? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/432 "2016-06-29T23:28:56Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Does “select-fire” imply automatic? I thought “select-fire” just meant at least two modes of fire, which could include safety and semi-auto, and thus most semi-auto handguns are “select-fire”. (underline added) The “safety” and “semi-auto” modes would be similar to “no fire” and “fire” modes. Thus they are not two modes of fire. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2016, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/433 "2016-06-29T23:39:43Z")
Once more, with feeling. **Automatic weapons have been banned in the USA since 1934.** ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/434 "2016-06-30T00:02:24Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Once more, with feeling. **Automatic weapons have been banned in the USA since 1934.** You are wrong. They are restricted from manufacture in some instances and banned in some states, but depending on where you live you could buy one today. You have to fill out much more papetwork but they are not banned. Do you have $10,000? ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/435 "2016-06-30T00:48:43Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Once more, with feeling. **Automatic weapons have been banned in the USA since 1934.** Interesting. I’ll have to tell my friends that legally own them. [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuGVYuHgJJc) ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/436 "2016-06-30T01:11:33Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/08/barack-obama-backs-operation-fast-furious-drops-executive-privilege-claim-documents/](http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/08/barack-obama-backs-operation-fast-furious-drops-executive-privilege-claim-documents/) > > So, already revoked. And Obama had no hand in it. Nor did Holder. > > But yes, Obama invoked EP as it was a witchhunt by a hostile Congress. Bush had a friendly congress. > > Now, you can argue that Holder _should_ have known, but he didnt. Nor did Obama. (post shortened) The Obama/Holder administration did not turn over all of the documents requested. EP still applies to some of the information. Only the information that had already been made public in the Justice Dept. inspector general’s report or other places had to be released. Obama’s and Holder’s specific participation has yet to be determined. Obama could claim EP because his Whitehouse was involved in the operation. \*In January, a federal district court judge rejected Obama’s executive privilege claim over records detailing the Justice Department and White House’s response to Operation Fast and Furious, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigation that may have allowed as many as 2,000 firearms to pass into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson did not turn down Obama’s privilege assertion on the merits. Instead, she said authorized public disclosures about the operation in a Justice Department inspector general report essentially mooted the administration’s drive to keep the records secret. Both sides had until midnight Friday to file an appeal. Instead, the Obama administration turned over a set of documents to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Justice Department believes they won because the judge limited the scope of documents that the president has to turn over. Patrick Rodenbush, a DOJ spokesman, said: The Department of Justice is pleased that the district court … continued to recognize that the deliberative process component of the executive privilege exists and was a valid basis for the Department to withhold certain documents when requested by the House in 2011. Although the Department disagrees with the district court’s conclusion that the privilege was overcome in this particular case by disclosures and statements made in other contexts, the Department has decided not to appeal the court’s judgment and has provided a production of documents to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. …“Today, under court order, DOJ turned over some of the subpoenaed documents. The Committee, however, is entitled to the full range of documents for which it brought this lawsuit. Accordingly, we have appealed the District Court’s ruling in order to secure those additional documents,” Chaffetz said.\* > **[Barack Obama Backs Down Over Operation Fast and Furious, Drops Executive...](https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/04/08/barack-obama-backs-operation-fast-furious-drops-executive-privilege-claim-documents/)** > > President Barack Obama, after years of fighting to hide Operation Fast and Furious documents, finally relented and officially dropped his claim to executive privilege over them. | Politics ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/437 "2016-06-30T02:40:21Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Once more, with feeling. **Automatic weapons have been banned in the USA since 1934.** [National Firearms Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act). Basically, automatic weapons are restricted and heavily regulated (and gods awful expensive), but they aren’t banned (well, except in a few states). From the link: > [@](#): > > Registration, purchases, taxes and transfers[edit] > It is a common misconception[21] that an individual must have a "Class 3 " in order to own NFA. An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II. The sale and purchase of NFA is, however, taxed and regulated, as follows: > > All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.[22] The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.[23] There have been several unfavorable lawsuits where plaintiffs have been denied NFA approval for a transfer. These lawsuit include: Lomont v. O’Neill,[24] Westfall v. Miller,[25] and Steele v. National Branch.[26] > > NFA items may also be transferred to corporations (or other legal entities such as a trust). When the paperwork to request transfer of an NFA item is initiated by an officer of a corporation, fingerprint cards and photographs of the official need to be submitted with the transfer request. This method has downsides, since it is the corporation (and not the principal) that owns the firearm. Thus, if the corporation ever dissolves, it must transfer its NFA to the owners. This event would be considered a new transfer and would be subject to a new transfer tax.[27] > US National Act Stamp, affixed to transfer forms to indicate tax paid. > The tax for privately manufacturing any NFA firearm (other than machineguns, which are illegal for individuals to manufacture) is $200. Transferring requires a $200 tax for all NFA except AOW’s, for which the transfer tax is $5 (although the manufacturing tax remains $200).[27] > > All NFA weapons made by individuals must be legal in the State or municipality where the individual lives. The payment of a $200 “making tax” prior to manufacture of the weapon, although a subsequent transfer of AOWs after they are legally “made” is only $5. Only a Class-II manufacturer (a FFL holder licensed as a “Manufacture of Firearms” or Type-07 license that has paid a Special Occupational Tax Stamp or SOT) can manufacture NFA firearms (other than destructive devices) but they pay a larger annual tax which ranges from $500 to $1000 to cover manufacturing.[28] > > A Destructive Device manufacturing license or Type-10 FFL holder can manufacture destructive devices making-tax free. However a type-07 license costs $150 for three years –– whereas a Type-10 destructive manufacturing license costs $3000 for three years. Both licenses still require the payment of the $500 (reduced-rate) Special Occupational Tax Stamp or SOT, (or the $1000 full tax) per year to conduct manufacturing of NFA weapons that they are respectively qualified to manufacturer. The SOT “reduced rate” applies to a business whose sales are less than $500,000 per year.[29] > > Transferable machine guns made or registered before May 19, 1986 are worth far more than their original, pre-1986 value and items like registered “auto-sears,” “lightning-links,” trigger-packs, trunnions, and other “combination of parts” registered as machineguns before the aforementioned date are often worth nearly as much as a full registered machine gun. For instance, as of September 2008, a transferable M16 rifle costs approximately $11,000 to $18,000, while a transferable “lightning-link” for the AR-15 can sell for $8,000 to $10,000. New manufacture M-16s sell to law enforcement and the military for around $600 to $1000. > > Upon the request of any ATF agent or investigator, or the Attorney General, the registered owner must provide proof of registration of the firearm.[30] > > In a number of situations, an NFA item may be transferred without a transfer tax. These include sales to government agencies, temporary transfers of an NFA firearm to a gunsmith for repairs, and transfer of an NFA firearm to a lawful heir after the death of its owner. A permanent transfer, even if tax-free, must be approved by the ATF. The proper form should be submitted to ATF before the transfer occurs. For example, lawful heirs must submit a Form 5 and wait for approval before taking possession of any NFA item willed to them. Temporary transfers, such as those to a gunsmith or to the original manufacturer for repair, are not subject to ATF approval since they are not legally considered transfers. The ATF does, however, recommend filing tax-free transfer paperwork on all such temporary transfers, to confer an extra layer of legal protection on both the owner and the gunsmith.[27] I’m not sure what you thought you were saying, or why you wanted to do it with feeling, but you really should click on the link and read the article before weighing in on the subject. But then, that would be good advice for many in this thread. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/438 "2016-06-30T03:07:04Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If you want compromise, then offer a compromise. Compromises short of outright bans, and they’ve been rejected – because you ‘can’t trust’ the gun control lobby. :rolleyes: > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > BTW, telling you that we won’t deal with you because we don’t trust you is not a slippery slope argument. Maybe it’s just a bad argument. “I don’t trust you” isn’t a factual argument; it’s a feeling. You can’t premise an argument on a feeling alone. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/439 "2016-06-30T03:11:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > To be fair, your use of the word “compromise” has been non-standard. You are probably not using the word compromise inappropriately because you don’t know what it means but because you want to frame the gun rights side as uncompromising, which is a half step from unreasonable, which is kissing cousins to irrational. And by contrast frame your side of the argument as rational, reasonable and ready to compromise. No, it’s not non-standard. You tried to pull that shit with me yesterday by somehow differentiating “concessions” from “compromise.” They’re synonymous. I’m not going to debate you on this because linguistics is something I actually have a knowledge of. I speak more than one language fluently, and I’ve studied language structure, semantics, and the like extensively, so I’m not interested in debating with amateurs on the semantic meanings of words. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2016, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/440 "2016-06-30T03:14:10Z")
I’ve never understood something about the 2nd Amendment: There’s a sliding scale of weaponry that exists in the world; on the one hand, everyone is allowed kitchen knives in their kitchen; on the other extreme; no private citizen can have nuclear weapons. So how hard would it be for the gun-control side to simply push the spectrum a bit further so that guns are now in the “not-allowed” category but as long as everyone still has Tasers or pepper spray, they’re technically bearing arms? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469.md?page=23)