comment: >
  
  I don't know. Probably not in our lifetime. Neither full auto weapons nor military style semi-automatic rifles have ever been used much in violent crime because they are not very portable and they are difficult to conceal. If you wanted to reduce violent crime through gun control, rather than wave your pitchfork and yell at an effigy, you would go after handguns, not long guns.
  If you REALLY wanted to reduce violent crime, you would devote all this passion to ending the drug war, reforming this horrifying prison system which is just an academy for psychopathic violence, and, building a comprehensive social welfare system. Not pointless, futile gestures which amount to virtue signaling.
context: Spineless court makes decision based on their feelings creates confusion. 
  What a surprise!^/s >
  
  The arm must be on fire all the way to the pit. >
  
  Well that would be the literalist/originalist interpretation based on words on a page. >
  
  Caetano v. Massachusetts
  The SCOTUS was unanimous 9-0  including RBG "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" >
  
  Guess we better breakout the vx nerve gas. It's a bearable arm after all. >
  
  Yeah, where do chemical weapons fired as projectiles fall in this? Why should your handgun have more rights than my grenade launcher? >
  
  That Supreme Court decision was about stun guns and they included other criteria (based off Heller) such as military vs. civilian use, inherent risk, and how “dangerous or unusual” the weapon is. 
  The line quoted above is shutting down the claim a modern weapon by nature of being new is “unusual” and can therefore be banned. >
  
  The SCOTUS has made it clear that not all weapons and not all accessories are available to all people at all times.
  I just wish my daughter didn't have to do active shooter drills in 3rd grade.  But radicals and their nutty ideas have gotten us to that point, and want it to go even further. >
  
  I wonder if you actually realize how incredibly unlikely that is. It is on the order of .00004% chance. Four hundred thousandths of one percent. I'd be happy to work through the math with you. Most people think hundreds or thousands of children die every year in mass shootings because of the continuous misinformation and exaggeration of figures who make an opulent living off disinformation and exaggeration.
  Perhaps if some of the people who advocate "common sense" gun restrictions were capable of common sense risk evaluation, we could all discuss this more reasonably. Who is really being radically unreasonable? >
  
  Guns are now the #1 cause of children’s deaths. Common sense gun restrictions are desperately needed but the right always rushes to shut down any attempts at discussions for making any changes. The only ideas they allow us to try is dumb nonsense like:
  
  
  arming teachers (the same teachers they attack and harass by calling them “gr00mers”??)
  
  
  sending home free dna tests to identify children’s dead bodies
  
  
  More kids will die from mass shootings than they will from being harmed by attending a drag story time but republicans only care about “protecting children” from one of those things. The right’s priorities show they dgaf about keeping kids safe, they only care about kids if they can use them to justify the vile shit they already want to do. >
  
  I don't know what I am supposed to do with all this information. If you're not talking to a right-winger it all falls apart so it's just a personal attack. There are lots of liberal gun owners, we just don't make a spectacle of ourselves.
  Nobody to my knowledge has proposed making it legal to kill children. What is at issue is whether gun control advocates may abrogate the constitutional liberties of 320,000 million Americans who are no threat, over an extremely exaggerated risk they've made no effort to evaluate rationally, because they suppose it might help them feel safer in some way.
  The mere fact that you do not value your own rights does not mean the rights of others are at your disposal. >
  
  Calm down. Your constitutional liberties are gonna be fine even with more gun control. So are mine.
  Gun control worked for the automatics. You know it worked for the automatics. Red flag laws work. They would have prevented the most recent shooting in CO Springs if law enforcement had done its job and enforced the laws. But even the cops aren’t interested in keeping us safe anymore. 
  This isn’t about anyone’s “feelings”. It’s about policies that have been proven to work. >
  
  What does "it worked for the automatics" mean? You probably either mean the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the national assault weapons ban of 1994-2004? The AWB did not impose any further restrictions on automatic weapons and made no discernible difference in any crime stat. >
  
  When was the last time an automatic weapon was used in a mass shooting?