2. Things like this would be illegal.
Things like that are legal because they don't meet the language of any current bans. They still fire only one round per pull of the trigger and they don't have a folding stock. Under the proprosed "updated" AWB versions banning ALL magazines over 10 rounds, even these would be effectively neutered.
Using the flipside of the argument,
"If it were REALLY about how many rounds you could put downrange in a certain amount of time," if it
were REALLY about how many rounds you could put down range, wouldn't the pictured firearm be used in large numbers of murders, robberies and school shootings?
I have no problems with lawful private ownership of firearms, but certain types of weapons such as FA need more controls placed on them than others in the interest of public safety. As in so many other issues, the public on this issue has a valid interest in restraining private rights in the interest of public safety.
I've seen folks with a very similar viewpoint of protecting public safety voicing their concerns over the Internet. They claim that since the founding fathers never conceived anything like the Internet, the First Amendment doesn't cover its absolute freedom of use. They state the large amount of easily accessible pornography, the endless SPAM which causes some elderly people to send their life savings overseas in ripoffs, and chat rooms were perverts can prey on children, show the need for government restrictions on who can use the Internet and the content allowed.
Following the Gulf War, there were even
reporters claiming the imbedded reporters and the Internet were a
bad thing. They said the average citizen wasn't capable of reading the raw reports and seeing the uncensored images and reaching a knowledgeable conclusion. They needed network news reporters to sort it all out and give concise reports the masses could handle.
That is one of the very reasons the founding fathers thought the BORs was so important. They decided to let each individual make their own decisions on what was right for them, not the government or some other "concerned" group seeking "reasonable controls."
You think some restrictions on machinegun ownership are legitimate for public safety. Diane Feinstein thinks bans on folding stocks are legitimate for public safety. Sarah Brady thinks a complete ban on the ownership of handguns is needed for public safety.
Why should you, Diane Feinstein or Sarah Brady have anything to say about what firearms I can buy? If we are going to allow restrictions, who gets to determine the level of restrictions? You may rest assured that if it is left up to Diane Feinstein, she will eventually get to some "class" of firearm you do care about.
