Washington Semiautomatic assault weapons represent a significant technological change - they allowa shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, ....

[The Heretic]

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6743/attachments/original/1686074987/Hartford_v_Ferguson_55_Order.pdf?1686074987

https://www.reddit.com/r/GunMemes/comments/142q5w5

Read More

 

[Member 34319]

Wait till they learn about a keyboard and what it's done for the 1st amendment!

 

[Fiorina]

I can't believe he said they aren't in common use. Such blatant bias

 

[Nosferatu]

I can't believe he said they aren't in common use. Such blatant bias

Especially since they are apparently used in every "mass shooting". And since we apparanently have something like 47 "mass shootings" every day, seems pretty common use to me!

 

[arakboss]

Did they eliminate the 5 second delay between shots triggers. Monsters!

 

[Knobgoblin]

Uh , if they're so uncommon why have I owned dozens?

 

[CamoDeafie]

yeah sure, such a significant change that we won World War 2 with semiautomatic rifles and handguns... something that started 80+ years ago

such a change that almost every police department now have AR15s or similar semiautomatic weapons since the North Hollywood Bank robbery of 1997 , during the much vaunted by one Party, Clinton Assault Weapons Ban

 

[Kruel J]

Wait till they learn about a keyboard and what it's done for the 1st amendment!

Ok….that was good.

 

[titsonritz]

As opposed to a katana which "allows" one to loop heads off as fast as one can swing that biotch. Guess what bubblegums, people have been slaying people since people have been around and the ridiculous concept of "civilized humanity" doesn't mean chit compared to historical fact.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The State and their lapdogs want absolute monopoly on "lawful" violence.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Wait till they learn about a keyboard and what it's done for the 1st amendment!

Exactly. I don't see them writing all this with a quill, ink and paper. If the opinions and laws that follow use the "advanced technology" then it must apply to everything.

 

[The Heretic]

As opposed to a katana which "allows" one to loop heads off as fast as one can swing that biotch. Guess what bubblegums, people have been slaying people since people have been around and the ridiculous concept of "civilized humanity" doesn't mean chit compared to historical fact.

People just recently progressed to throwing stones as fast as they could pick them up.

 

[RX-79G]

It seems like there are two problems:

1. The historical tradition of regulation aspect, which means that regulation of firearms is okay as long as it doesn't erase the fundamental right. Heller accepted Miller. Bruen references Heller. Restrictions on arms is not against the Constitution.

2. That semiautomatic rifles haven't been banned. WA residents can buy a Remington 7400 today if they wish. They just can't buy one with certain additions. Those banned additions are the regulation, not the semiautomatic function itself.

So it might be an uphill battle to show that a citizen who can buy a semiautomatic rifle legally is being deprived of a right that the court holds to be limited.

 

[Mark W.]

and you have been able to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger since the first double action revlvers in the 1800's and semi auto rifles were all the rage just after the turn of the century.

 

[RX-79G]

and you have been able to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger since the first double action revlvers in the 1800's and semi auto rifles were all the rage just after the turn of the century.

And we haven't lost them. In fact, we are being limited to semiauto rifles that are similar to the ones you are referencing.

 

[Stomper]

As opposed to a katana which "allows" one to loop heads off as fast as one can swing that biotch. Guess what bubblegums, people have been slaying people since people have been around and the ridiculous concept of "civilized humanity" doesn't mean chit compared to historical fact.

Or present day reality.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Semi automatic ghost guns:

FullSizeRender.MOV

• ilikegunspdx
• May 4, 2023

 

[nwslopoke]

And we haven't lost them. In fact, we are being limited to semiauto rifles that are similar to the ones you are referencing.

We haven't lost them because we are following the rules and playing nicely. Our rights and property are under constant attack by government.

What happens when good people have nothing to lose? What happens when parents with real children (not just the hypothetical, if I had kids, response) are put in a difficult place?

The people presiding over these laws are protected by all manner of weapons. They have nothing to lose and usually grant themselves immunity over the infringments they make.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Yup

 

[Loc]

It seems like there are two problems:

1. The historical tradition of regulation aspect, which means that regulation of firearms is okay as long as it doesn't erase the fundamental right. Heller accepted Miller. Bruen references Heller. Restrictions on arms is not against the Constitution.

2. That semiautomatic rifles haven't been banned. WA residents can buy a Remington 7400 today if they wish. They just can't buy one with certain additions. Those banned additions are the regulation, not the semiautomatic function itself.

So it might be an uphill battle to show that a citizen who can buy a semiautomatic rifle legally is being deprived of a right that the court holds to be limited.

1. Restrictions on dangerous and unusual arms, yes. Outright banning those in common use such as those in question, no. Both Heller and Bruen stated this unequivocally.

2. No "addition" as you have termed them is inherently dangerous or unusual, neither are they firearms, so cannot be banned.

Finally, regulating firearms is one thing - and was the point of the "regulation" commentary in both Heller and Bruen - not outright banning them. The idea was, and still is in both cases, to introduce methods of screening out possession of those who shouldn't possess firearms. Heller outright lists both felons and the mentally ill as the two categories of persons who cannot possess firearms, therefore must be regulated from possession. The remaining categories of citizens within the age limitations (again, a regulation and not a ban) retain their right to access and possession of weapons that are not deemed dangerous and unusual.