Quote:
|
Just where is the line drawn? We draw it at fully auto right now--but what about 30 round magazines? Will that increase collateral damage?
|
This is part of the reason I don't think there should be a line when dealing with firearms. Anytime you establish a line or an exception to something you open the door to advancing the line and creating further exceptions.
You make a good statement with the 30 round magazines and collateral damage. The line is at automatic weapons and for a while was at large capacity magazines (and could return to that). After that do we do like Britain and decide all handguns should be banned because they are used in crimes and are portable enough anybody can have one? What about semi-automatic guns, they can unleash a torrent of lead pretty effectively. Once you open Pandora's box it's not easy to control nor close it.
We established heavy laws on automatic guns because of criminals. This is usually the reason for restricting things. What did it accomplish? Well the criminals just get their automatic weapons through illegal means. Gangs still have access to fully automatic weapons just as they did in the time the National Firearms Act was passed. It seems the act failed to accomplish it's intended goal. Making something illegal or exorbitantly expensive doesn't stop people from obtaining it, it just creates a black market. Barriers to entry only affect people who are willing to play by the rules.
Quote:
|
The Supreme Court disagrees
|
Being I was stating my belief and not the law I don't see how the supreme courts' ruling have any bearing.