So which is it?
Which way does the right want it?
Or do you want it both ways and it depends on which argument allows you to win that particular point at that particular point in time?
You also seem to be advocating for adopting a foreign law that you admit to not knowing the details of.
I am NOT advocating that we copy this foreign law. I simply pointed out that another nation similar to ours adopted a law for a specific goal and it achieved that goal.
The Constitution never guarantees the right of a citizen to purchase and bear any gun of their choice. To pretend that it does is false and a lie.You equate some towns restrictions with nation wide restriction/laws. You say it is not a curtailment on the right to own guns, but it clearly is taking away the right to purchase many different guns.
Yes. I understand that.You also don't seem to understand what they Clinton era "ban" really said. Not all "assault weapons" were baned from new sales, the ban only affected new sales, not the transfer or sale of pre-existing arms or magazines.
I find no reversal of it by the Supreme Court. And it was on the books for a full decade allowing for plenty of challenges if anyone saw fit or had reasonable grounds to do so. There might be an excellent reason why no challenge ever reached the court.Was the ban ever constitutionally challenged in the Supreme Court?
None.Sorry that is wrong. It makes them more valuable and the price will go up.What reducing affect do you think a new ban would have on pre-existing guns and magazines?
I am NOT equating anything. I am relating what happened in Australia and what they did and the results they achieved.You also seem to equate "assault weapons" with mass shootings. Tell me, what "assault weapon" was used in Tucson? What firearms were used at columbine and did they get them through legal means? Were "assault weapons" the only ones used during any of the mass shootings?