Meaning the subject of 'shall not be infringed', is up to interpretation. IE, an arbitrary line in the sand. Which almost no one disputes. What is often disputed is where the line in the sand should be. So, even the SCOTUS has no problem messing with the strict interpretation of the 2A. Assume that's to protect public safety. Gun Control Act, also sets to define infringement based on interpretations by not using the strict interpretation of the 2A, 'shall not be infringed'. I have no problem, like most, with infringements. How about you?
Why does it matter a classification? The only classification in 2A is, keep and bear arms. I don't see any other classification. The power to ban is an infringement. Is it not? The whole topic of what can and can not be infringed is inconsistent. And not in compliance with the 2A. IMO.
I don't remember wanting to ban my semi auto 30-06 I use for deer hunting. Are you remembering correctly? My argument is only that the 2A offers no infringements. My other argument is everyone has their line in the sand. So most everyone has their reasons for infringements. Yourself included. Where it seems you get confused is you want to project things onto others when they don't have the same line in the sand as you on infringements.
You want to spray shot around your house, do so. I prefer to be accurate with my shot placement when I'm shooting at humans, because if I hit the wrong one that's on me. 50BMG leaves an awful hole at any distance, but its not real useful for tagging a gang banger breaking into your apartment and ONLY that gang banger.
I do have a problem with any infringement that doesn't meet the rules affirmed by SCOTUS in Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen. That's many of the gun control laws we have now and virtually everything new being proposed.
But you're ok with SCOTUS mandated infringements. Thx. WE have your line in the sand. What about when the SCOTUS changes and rules differently? Because some point in the future, it will be ruled differently. Although, we may not be alive. But a new ruling is almost guaranteed. See R v W.
no what he believes is that the congress can ban any and all weapons and since we don't oppose nukes being banned, we shouldn't oppose his desire to ban semi auto rifles
We won't see a new viewpoint until the progressives gain a majority. That may allow new laws. It won't solve gun violence. The problem will be enforcement. Red states won't enforce federal gun control laws. Red counties in blue states won't enforce state level gun control.
You claimed they weren't coming for your deer rifle, which you described as semi auto. They very much are. That's what it had to do with it. But you knew that and you're just being deliberately obtuse.
Flashbangs or concussions grenades going off close enough will maim or kill a person. I'm also quite certain more than one department has all sorts of toys they don't use much if at all. And they have plenty of explosives, see the Dallas PD killer robot they armed with them to take out a mass shooter some few years ago. Trying to pretend that they don't is insulting to my intelligence.
Didn't the progressives, not sure who is defined as such, have control during some point during Obama? And I don't think they implemented any restrictions, did they? The last restriction put in was by the GOP and trump, banning bump stocks. So, I am not sure of this progressive thing or if it's even relevant. And as always, the USSC will decide.
t I claimed I never said I wanted to ban my(any) deer rifle, in response to the lie the other poster made about me wanting such a ban.
The bans posited which as I recall you support would ban semi automatic magazine fed rifles. Like your purported deer rifle.
