The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-20-2020, 11:39 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-20-2020, 08:56 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The reasonable compromise would be to distinguish between military and civilian arms.  Civilian arms would include those used for target shooting, hunting and self defense.  A given size of magazine, rate of fire, power of individual shot, could be included in the definition of a civilian weapon.  Ownership of the more potent military weapons could be limited to those who belonged to a well regulated militia, who were bound to the orders of a state officer appointed by the state.  As this militia would be well regulated, the state could say under what conditions military weapons could be carried.  However, there would be a continued right to own and carry civilian weapons.

All are invited to propose other limits.  If you can get Classic to agree, your compromise would become real.  Assume you need Classic’s support when coming up with your compromise.

We already have a legal distinction between military and civilian arms. Military arms can be fully automatic weapons where as civilian arms are limited to semi-automatic weapons. I don't really care about the look of a semi automatic weapon myself and the hang up/beef seems to be over the look of particular civilian weapons vs the legal distinction and function of those particular weapons.

Where is the distinction made? I'd agree the distinction you make is about right, but to my knowledge it is not made in the Constitution.