The Assault Weapons Ban

Thanks for the reply, hopefully from here on we can work to forge some kind of understanding or agreement. Historically in the modern period, SCOTUS doesn't like repeating controversial decisions. Take Roe v Wade, as abortion is arguably the only thing as disagreed on as gun control. It's been in place for a long time now, through many conservative Presidents who appointed conservative judges. Yet, it still stands. I see no reason to assume it will be undone. Nor do I see any contradiction with US v Miller. As to US v Cruikshank it's very important to note that the Court freed the Ku Klux Klan after it murdered a hundred Black men in 1876, and that subsequently, the Federal Government has prosecuted against that ruling by charging people with civil rights violations. As previously stated, the unorganized militia is every man between 17 and 45. http://www.law.cornell.edu... So, the militia argument is a semantic tool that is easily defied by common sense. Now, as to firing rates, this is a valid point I can address. I do believe that some magazines have capacities that are too high. For example, the drum magazines that hold over seventy rounds, or the pistol magazines that hang down out of the magazine well in order to hold thirty or forty rounds. Such magazines are bulky and inefficient for any lawful use. With that said, I do not believe a ban is wise. I believe that they should be classified the way short-barreled rifles or silencers are, and put under control of the ATF, available to collectors with the right scrutiny rather than just banned. What I do take issue with is the discussion of 'high capacity.' Every weapon has a set standard capacity. A revolver may hold six shots, but a new Glock pistol may hold 15. The idea that anything over ten rounds is inherently high capacity is ridiculous, as for many weapons that would be considered a low capacity magazine. Bans need to be made in accordance with the weapon. For example, I would support a position of 15 round limits on pistols, and 30 on rifles. Polls again. You might be looking for popular opinion. I am not. The fact is, popular opinion historically has led to bans on gay marriage or interracial marriage, to poll taxes and to literacy tests. Popular opinion is very widely drawn from media slogans and sound bytes, and not from substance. I am making a technocratic argument, and not a populist argument. Additionally, everyone should not have an opinion. I don't believe the Ku Klux Klan should have a say on race affairs, so why should I believe that rabid people of any streak should? Statistics. It's the best number I can find, as if you looked carefully, it does indicate it includes weapons recovered at the scene of the crime. That means it does account for mass shootings. And, as I have previously said, mass shootings are exceedingly rare and only noteworthy for high visibility in the media. Less than one tenth of one percent of all murders. http://www.bloomberg.com... Fundamentally, what I want is a truly sensible law. A law that looks at realities of law enforcement without bias, without a jaundiced view, and acts based on the ideas of experts, of people who know firearms, and people who know all about the legitimate civilian uses of marksmanship, self defense, and hunting. The fundamental question should not be 'do we need more gun laws?' We don't need more laws. We need to reevaluate all the laws and restructure a flawed system. Otherwise, we are putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. Or, depending on how we look at it, putting a bandaid on a paper cut as we ignore our leg broken at a horrifying angle with protruding bone.