Technically, ex felons don’t exist. Once a convicted felon, always a convicted felon. You’ve just served your time and some rights are restored. Not the one to possess a firearm. Our rights, are guaranteed under the constitution. But these rights are not absolute. That doesn’t make them privileges. The average citizen is not a convicted felon.
so you think rights are privileges that can be taken away - got it we punish people during sentencing, once they have served that sentence the punishment ends - want to punish someone longer, give them longer sentances but I take it you agree with me, they do not need 10 bullets to keep their homes and families safe
Rights are not privileges. Look up the difference in any dictionary. And, NONE of your rights are absolute.
They were federally at one time until the provision sunset. 10 states still limit magazine capacities. So it’s still a constitutionally allowed provision allowed to any state. So that statement is incorrect.
if we take away rights from some free Americans, then they are privileges, rights can not be taken away lets not turn our rights into privileges...
Why don’t you look up the meaning of each instead of making up your own definitions. There are rights enumerated in the constitution. None are privileges and none are absolute. Otherwise, I guess you don’t recognize societies being able to regulate firearms possession. Don’t take it up with me, go to a local federal building and argue your point. They will smile, listen, then send you on your way and nothing will change.
Different types of hunting require different configurations of weaponry. If one is engaged in nuisance hunting, where there are no bag limits and the goal is eradication of the entire population of a specific species, there are no limits on magazine capacity. What government workers do or do not want if of absolutely no relevance to the discussion. What they want has no bearing on constitutional rights. Do law enforcement officers possess magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition? If the answer is yes, then even those who are well trained have a legitimate need for such magazines. Meaning even those who are not well trained are in need of such magazines.
Why has the absolute federal prohibition on illicit narcotic substances, such as heroin and cocaine, done absolutely nothing to put an end to the widespread use, abuse, sale, and distribution of such substances and the like? Why did such measures fail with regard to alcoholic beverages, forcing the government to put an end to the prohibition once and for all?
Are handguns, shotguns, and rifles, all conventional firearms? If such, then they are not comparable to destructive devices such as nuclear weaponry. If even a firearm regarded as suitable only for hunting can be used in the successful commission of a mass shooting, then there are no firearm-related restrictions that can prevent such incidents from being committed.
Do military personnel own the firearms they are issued? If nor then the comparison being presented on the part of yourself is meaningless. The discussion relates to firearms owned in compliance with the national firearms act, meaning the fully-automatic firearms currently available for private ownership by private individuals. Once again. Exactly what is serving to prevent an individual who owns a fully-automatic firearm from using it to commit a mass murder? They have the means and opportunity, they have the appropriate firearm and a sufficient amount of ammunition to do so. So what is ultimately serving to physically stop such from occurring?
Explain how the regulations pertaining to fully-automatic firearms are serving to prevent their legal owners from using their legally owned fully-automatic firearms from engaging in mass shootings. Explain precisely what it is about these particular regulations, that are serving to prevent such from occurring.
So, you’re getting ready to be attacked by a plethora of wild pigs in heat. That’s the logic of nra devotees.
Except for the fact that it does not. Rather, then inability on the part of yourself to clarify precisely how the regulations supposedly work, serves to speak for itself. The regulations on fully-automatic firearms have done absolutely nothing to prevent so much as even a single mass shooting from begin committed with a fully-automatic firearm in private ownership. The regulations exist exclusively for purposes of taxation, and only taxation. If the two hundred dollar fee were to be eliminated by congress, the rest of the regulations would be devoid of constitutional legitimacy and have no reason to exist.
The fact that there is nothing of substance or meaning in the posts that are being addressed, is both noted and quite apparent. Otherwise an effort would have been made before now to explain what sort of firearm-related restrictions serve to physically prevent an individual from picking up a legally owned firearm, and engaging in a mass shooting with it. Since no such effort has been made, all that is being done on the part of yourself is a violation of established forum rules, as the posts are contributing nothing of significance.
Obviously not. You have issued weapons you are responsible for. That is your personal responsibility when on a wartime footing. That’s what I was referring to. “Their own” and “being owned” are not the same thing I was referred to. If you were in the military, you’d get it. There aren’t many soldiers on active duty that are allowed to have civilian weapons. Giving personal responsibility to soldiers for their weapons and vehicles they use is what helps the military track its weapons and vehicles.
there has not been a sensible argument for mag restrictions. So I am not surprised of your support. You want to help criminals win confrontations with honest citizens. The people most likely to use a gun to illegally harm others are the least likely to comply with licensing. We get the fact that you don't believe there is a constitutional right to own firearms.
