Well weedperson, I think you have, and are missing the point. I appreciate your ability to debate, and you are quite good at it in some ways. In other ways, not so much....
Your premise of "need" pretty much destroys your argument in a free society. Does anyone need a Hellcat Dodge Challenger?
NO!!!!
Do people in the USA have the right, and freedom to CHOOSE a fossil fuel wasting, speed limit destroying toy? Would you prefer everyone drive a Leaf or Prius?
Instead of focusing on "fuzzy bunny guns", why don't you argue reasonable magazine capacity limits (which will be countered and destroyed in debate), or visual cues to differentiate assault weapons from any other semi-automatic rifle? Or maybe contrast that with 9mm pistols with >15 round magazines that can be exchanged in < 1 sec? I'm guessing these debate points would be too hard to argue. Please show me the error in my judgement.
Although you seem to have debate skills, your usage of them seems lacking in this case.....
Please clarify your argument points!
Thank you for participating. You made very valid points and I'll address them to the best of my ability.
As much as we are in a free society, we still have laws and regulations. The freedom is not in the right to do what we want, when we want, because we want. It is rooted in our ability to freely express our opinions and elect representatives that best serve our interest.
I've requested examples of need to weigh against risk, not to regulate if a need is not present. We have the militia need currently.
Citing your hellcat example, the need for this car is no more or less than another car as a vehicle in general, but since it also poses no additional risk given current regulations for speed and safety, there's really no issue.
Citing your fuel example, there are already regulations in place to reduce gas consumption and increase mpg. This proves my point that based on need and risk assessment, regulations are needed, not dispute it. As long as hellcats run within regulation, then you have the freedom to hellcat the hell out of a leaf.
I can focus the argument on what the gun regulations should be, but I was initially hoping that someone can cite a need that negates cause for regulations to start. But to answer your question,
10rd capacity semi auto for all guns
Ammunition limited to hollow point for handguns and soft point or ballistics for rifles
No limit on gun style based on visual appearance
No limit on accessory
No stupid reload button tool thingy
Limit on number of mags per gun ownership 3 non interchangeable per gun max
Limit on 2 loaded mags total with any carry (one gun two mags, two gun, one mag each)
Sensor based trigger system for registered owner fire only
Full background check with any purchase and national database for guns, mags, and ammunition (bases on primer count) with personal use limit. Range practice purchases are exempt.
Annual gun registration, with physical inspection every three. Training course required at every 5.
I would include ammunition type limits, but not knowledgeable enough to propose, i.e. handgun rounds for all guns except bolt action and shotguns.
I think that is about it. Let me know what you think.
