On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:52:46 AM UTC-5, Dove Tail wrote:
On 3/8/2018 at 5:36:08 AM, dvus wrote:


There is simply no overwhelming need for semi-automatic weapons in
civilian society. They are fun and make people feel like they are
soldiers, I get it, but, for hunting, marksmanship and
self-protection, non-semi-automatic weapons are more reliable, more
accurate and less prone to causing undesired collateral damage.

Yeah, a bunch of criminals will wait while you reload your musket.
The Constitution doesn't say that citizens have the right to bear
arms only if Liberals think there's an "overwhelming need" for them.
For them, that need only exists if they can afford armed security for
themselves.

Apparently you have limited to no first hand knowledge of modern
weapons or understanding of the second amendment and the SCOTUS
interpretations of the amendment.

Modern revolvers accommodate 4 - 10 rounds. Pump and lever action
shotguns accommodate 5 - 9 rounds. Bolt action rifles with internal
magazines can accommodate up to 10 rounds, etc. None of the above
types of weapons can be realistically converted to semi or full auto
fire.


In the 1800s there were revolvers with removable cylinders that could be quickly changed, just like a magazine in a semi-auto. If you ban semi-autos how long before new, modern ones are on the market? It's a simple thing. And then you'll be trying to ban those too. And then when the bad guys are using shotguns you'll ban those.







They also cannot be converted to utilize replaceable magazines.

If you cannot defend yourself with the above weapons, then you have no
place touching any kind of firearm.

As for the second amendment:


The second amendment doesn't say your gun is only for self defense.

Btw, SwallowBeak, where are all those posts of mine that you claimed you had reviewed when you made your BS lies? The silence is deafening.