An assault rifle is thought to be a fierce weapon at this time. The movies show this all the time, guys just blazing away, annihilating everything in their path with unlimited death. That's what us civvies think of those guns. Imagine seeing a non-elite guy try to use 6 shot mags to get through 30 shots. It would look a lot different. And like I said that people shifted their attitude and reactions after 9/11, people would shift and change their attitude when they come to understand the dynamics of utilizing 6 shot weapons. They would have more time to attack or flee and less destruction could be doled out before law enforcement could respond
None of this changes the fact that your supposition is unsupportable, evidence by the fact that the unsuspecting and unarmed victims of the mass shootings have not tried to take down their assailant during a reload.
Never mind the fact that not one of the mass shootings was perpetrated with an assault rifle.
No the magazines would be confiscated. Voluntarily or not. There will be a grace period, during which everyone can proactively, voluntarily comply with the law. If anyone is found in violation they'll face a very stiff fine and possible jail time.
So, again you don’t plan to go after the magazines, just take the magazines that happen to surface. This leaves them - huge number of them - in circulation, and access to them is maintained. Your plan therefore fails at preventing mass shootings as people so motivated can still obtain hi-cap magazines.
You are also not saying how it does not violate the constitution.
Remember that you plan to ban every shotgun that holds more than three rounds, which includes just about every lever, pump, and semi-auto shotgun in use today; banning and confiscating these guns would inarguably violate the constitution.
You'll have to show me how it does violate the consitution.
Already done – never mind the fact that one of the requirements of this exercise is for –you- to show that it does not.
I don't plan to ban any shotguns. If your shotgun has the capacity to hold more than 3 rounds, you'll be in violation of the law and will have to deal with the consequences.
Do you not see how your statement, above, contradicts itself?
You deliberately miss the point - the 2nd protects weapons that are part of the ordinary military equipment in common use at the time, and are suitable for effective service in the militia; to be effective in militia service, because the military weapons must have hi-cap magazines for effective service, those civilian-owned weapons that are able to use hi-cap magazines must also have said hi-cap magazines. Thus, to ban these magazines then violates the 2nd because said magazines are an integral part of the weapons so protected.
You are interpreting the heck out of the 2nd.
Incorrect – I have merely applied established jurisprudence to the issue, none of which have you challenged with any degree of efficacy.
The same ordiance that prevents civvies from having a mounted on their civilian version of the miliary humvee would be used for this bit of legislation
Umm... what ordinance is that? It’s perfectly legal in most places, so long as the gun is legally owned.
The national guard is not the militia, so any reference to same is meaningless. The militia is expected to use weapons supplied by its members, kept ready for use by those members; not allowing the people to keep those weapons violates the constitution as their right to do is protected.
The de facto purpose of the militia was much different in Colonial times than now...
Nothing here negates the soundness of what I said, and so it stands. Banning hi-cap magazines violates the 2nd amendment because it renders ineffective the militia-related weapons it was intended to protect.
Under similar logic, banning words does not volate the 1st amendment because the constitution mentions speech, not words.
So are you interpreting the Constitution strictly or are trying to expand the law through implication? If you agree to a course, I'll work off that. But it's not sportmanlike for you to switch back and forth.
Again, you fail to address the point, and so it stands.
Remember that the legislation I'm talking about would
1) Not take away any weapons
False. It bans most shotguns, as well as many handguns and a number of rifles.
2) Only affect weapons with capacities higher than 6 bullets.
Including those weapons most strongly protected by the constitution, rendering them ineffective for service in the militia- therefore violating the constitution.
There’s no compromise here as compromise requires that each side gives something that is has in order to get something it wants. You have nothing to give the side with the guns, and therefore cannot compromise with them.
So, as originally noted, your plan fails because it does not prevent people from getting hi-cap magazines, therefore still allowing the mass shootings it seeks to stop, and violates the constitution by banning weapons protected by it (various shotguns, handguns and rifles) and rendering ineffective the militia-related weapons it was intended to protect.
