Another Win For Gun Rights...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's just the thing, I'm seeing that you're only allowed to purchase fully-automatic weapons from before 1986 in all the links seer provided. It's meant for gun collectors and hobbyists basically. Not for self-defense. It acts as a defacto loop hole though for that purpose.

Just be thankful you live where you do. I know I am.

[seer]

Actually your link makes it quite clear that it is illegal for US Citizens to purchase a newly built M-16. There is a provision that allows a citizen to purchase an old machine gun from before 1986 though.

The point is it is not necessarily illegal to own fully automatic rifles.

[seanD]

Why does regulations about high-capacity clips infringe on the constitution but fully-automatic gun regulations do not?

To me, it's the slippery slope thing. You give them an inch of regulation and they'll eventually take a mile. It's best to nip it in the bud from the start.

[Leonhard]

The point is it is not necessarily illegal to own fully automatic rifles.

Defacto it kinda is if what you have is a grandfathering law as a backdoor to getting it. If all the old guns seized up or became dysfunctional, it would defacto be the case that it is not legal for a US citizen to own a fully automatic firearm.

Which is why I asked if it is legal to ban purchase of fully-automatic firearms, why is it illegal to not sell magazines with certain clip sizes?

[seer]

Which is why I asked if it is legal to ban purchase of fully-automatic firearms, why is it illegal to not sell magazines with certain clip sizes?

I'm not sure, but it could be that the states are exercising too much authority. The automatic firearm thing is federal. Remember the congress did ban assault rifles in the 90s under Clinton. I don't like any of it myself...

[Reepicheep]

You watch too much TV, you would be extremely lucky to kill 10 people with 10 shots.

Do California gun owners often find themselves involved in firefights where they have to fire more than 10 shots?

[Gondwanaland]

Do California gun owners often find themselves involved in firefights where they have to fire more than 10 shots?

CoughRodneyKingRiotsCough

[Reepicheep]

CoughRodneyKingRiotsCough

You are claiming that during the Rodney King riots, there were people who died because they emptied a magazine and were shot during the two or three seconds it took them to replace the empty magazine with a fresh one. Correct? Can you provide links to any news stories which prove your claim?

[firstfloor]

The Second Amendment only applies to single shot muskets and duelling pistols.

[Whateverman]

The Second Amendment only applies to single shot muskets and duelling pistols.

Funny how those who claim they value the original intent of the Constitution argue that their favorite document should also apply to modern hyper-violent technology.

[Reepicheep]

Funny how those who claim they value the original intent of the Constitution argue that their favorite document should also apply to modern hyper-violent technology.

I was just doing some reading on US gun laws, and apparently it is legal for US citizens to own weapons such as grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and the like. I even found a listing for a tank with an operational 120mm main cannon and ten rounds of ammunition.

[Littlejoe]

Funny how those who claim they value the original intent of the Constitution argue that their favorite document should also apply to modern hyper-violent technology.

Funny how those who try to make this argument fail to see how it could be turned against them with Freedom of speech...i.e. it can't apply to Radio, TV or anything on the Internet because they were around then.

[Whateverman]

I was just doing some reading on US gun laws, and apparently it is legal for US citizens to own weapons such as grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and the like. I even found a listing for a tank with an operational 120mm main cannon and ten rounds of ammunition.

That sounds pretty extreme. I don't know anyone who owns any of these things - and I say that knowing two people with fully automatic weapons.

EDIT: I did two or three minutes of research on this, and it appears that you're right. Americans can own some pretty extreme weaponry...

[Whateverman]

Funny how those who claim they value the original intent of the Constitution argue that their favorite document should also apply to modern hyper-violent technology.

Funny how those who try to make this argument fail to see how it could be turned against them with Freedom of speech...i.e. it can't apply to Radio, TV or anything on the Internet because they were around then.

That's actually my point. The Constitution SHOULD be interpreted to take the evolution of technology into account.

I'm not a conservative who argues that the original intent of the Constitution needs to take center stage. As such, I'm not a hypocrite when it comes to how I think things like the freedom of speech and the freedom to own firearms should be implemented.

Consitutionalist conservatives who argue in favor of that original intent while also making an exception when it comes to their ability to own massive amount of firepower - are.

[Littlejoe]

That's actually my point. The Constitution SHOULD be interpreted to take the evolution of technology into account.

I'm not a conservative who argues that the original intent of the Constitution needs to take center stage. As such, I'm not a hypocrite when it comes to how I think things like the freedom of speech and the freedom to own firearms should be implemented.

Consitutionalist conservatives who argue in favor of that original intent while also making an exception when it comes to their ability to own massive amount of firepower - are.

I don't see how Constitutional conservatives negate free speech rights because of technology. Libel and slander are still that no matter the medium. Perhaps a real world example instead of your vague accusations?