And just as in this case, the left uses hypothetical examples that have no bearing on the issue to argue that certain firearms should be banned.
It takes years of law school think that this gives the "free State" authority to deny law abiding citizens ownership of guns.
Another example of how retarded these stupid gun laws and the morons who come up with them are. It is a felony for a drug addict to possess a gun but it is legal for an alcoholic to possess a car. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. I’m missing something here.
Eh? Exactly what is an assault weapon, Mr. Hunger?
..are virtually identical weapons to M-16s but for one thing, which is that M-16s can use automatic fire instead of
semi-automatic fire and sure that is a distinction but it is not one that is constitutionally determinative,” Hunger said.
Well, Mr. Hunger, the Bruen case holds otherwise. Maybe the decision's finding that you "need to evaluate the
regulation not in consideration of the public good, but in light of the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" should be reread.
What’s so hard to understand about “shall not be infringed”?
Here is a Winchester from 1907.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/53410/has-a-weapon-functionally-equivalent-to-the-ar-15-been-available-for-u-s-civili
And another Remington Model 8 made in 1906.
https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/mtgs-texas-ranger-model-8.jpg.
The only reason semi-auto rifles were not available in 1860 was smokeless powder had not been invented yet.
