We recently discussed what President Joe Biden not only did Repeat incorrect statements Regarding the history of the Second Amendment, but failed to confirm it Restrictions imposed by the Second Amendment In request to suppress “offensive weapons”. However, he has not recently specifically called for a ban that faces serious constitutional challenges. Vice President Kamala Harris has now taken this step forward in demand one Prohibition of “offensive weapons” (Especially this week, a A Republican lawmaker also backed the ban About “Offensive Weapons.”)
Politicians often use the term “offensive weapon” to refer to the AR-15 and similar models of firearms. These civilian models are not automatic weapons (which are illegal for most citizens). As mentioned earlier, the AR-15 is the same The most popular weapon in America And the number is growing rapidly, with An AR-15 is purchased for every five new gun sales. This AR-15 is clearly not for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection. It is also popular for aim shooting and hunting. Many weapons Owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; Depending on the model, you can replace barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines or add different accessories. While it does more damage than a regular handgun, it is not the most powerful weapon ever sold. Many weapons are of equal or greater caliber.
However, Vice President Harris declared it a “weapon of war” that “has no place in civil society.” What happened after that seems to have gone beyond where President Biden left the issue as a critique rather than a call for an absolute ban: “We are not waiting to see what the solution is. You know, we’re not looking for vaccines. We know what works in this case. Let’s ban offensive weapons“
I have already written about the failure of politicians to acknowledge the limitations of the Second Amendment and the controlling judicial law. While there are objections to good faith in how the Second Amendment is interpreted, the current law makes it very difficult to defend such prohibitions. In 2008, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling District of Columbia v. HellerBy recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms.
Attempts to ban the AR-15 often can not clearly distinguish these weapons from other semi-automatic weapons in terms of caliber or firing speed. There are also obvious practical problems. with one It is estimated 393 million guns In the United States and It is estimated at 72 million Gun owners; Three out of ten Americans say they have guns. Actually, Gun ownership increased During the epidemic when a former Texas congressman and US Senate candidate Beto Overwork announcedHe was widely praised on the left, “Damn yes, we’ll get your AR-15.” However, even the seizure of a weapon requires its confiscation 15 million weapons.
It is noteworthy that O’Rourke had previously backtracked on his statement that AR-15s would come in handy when he announced his candidacy for governor of Texas. She He has recently returned To his previous position after the massacre and him Controversial attendance at a press conference With local authorities
Attempts to ban the model have already failed in the courts for constitutional reasons. Although the fight in this case continues. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District Lifted the California ban Adults under 21 buy semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15.
Politicians have often overlooked such a record in advancing laws that are likely to fail in the courts. The result is that liberal cities like New York, Chicago, and Washington DC have such a situation. It set a precedent for gun control efforts.
With nearly 400 million guns in the country, politicians are reluctant to accept that no legal action can stop such massacres by people like the Texas gunman alone. He could possibly have killed the same number of victims with a semi-automatic rifle. These are the questions that the courts are asked in any protest against the ban pursued by the Biden government. However, there are things we can do, such as addressing the lack of funding for mental illness in this country. This requires politicians who want to work on the basis of facts, not rhetoric about this national crisis.