SCOTUS has said multiple times they'll keep certain regulations in place, including certain types/classes of weapons used for (if I remember the phrasing correctly) criminal or unusual purposes.

The argument will, for ARs at least, eventually come down to the fact that they're not uncommon or unusual anymore.

That's because if the specific language of the NFA and the recent SCOTUS decisions that have solidified this court's 2A stance.

The NFA and historic bans/laws specifically mention something along the lines of uncommon use or unusual weapons.

That language is explicitly cited by Palmetto State Armory as their rationale for making highly affordable ARs-if they're no longer uncommon or unusual, the vans are, in theory, easily challenged by the letter of the law.

#8 thank you

#9 it's not so much popularity, but commonality. Again, it's a strategy to directly mitigate the wording of regulations that SCOTUS has said they'll maintain because they pass their own legal test they've established over the last three rulings (Heller, Bruen and Rahimi).

It's even a corporate strategy

AI drones are not "someone".

Yet.
#17 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Which is still human action with human intention. Same as pulling the trigger.

Don't feed obtuse idiots like boaz. Arguing that guns are harmless if left lying untouched isn't an intellectually serious comment because it's chosen to sound harmless and true.

Meanwhile, normal, serious people recognize that guns weren't designed to project copper covered lead bits at 2,000+ feet per second because it makes the flowers grow.

It's the lack of rational gun laws and regulations that is THE problem.
#18 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Not entirely. Something did change and it's disingenuous to ignore that.

But any society concerned with its well being would better regulate deadly weapons