4 ms·

It's worth notice that many of these same states[1] mentioned in the article lack any interest in enacting an assault weapons ban to protect their citizens from

• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• CamperBob2 9y ago
  No, it isn't. Trading one civil liberty for another is a negative-sum game.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• Pyxl101 9y ago
  It's worth notice that "assault weapons" is a loaded term, that really just means "rifles that are [scary looking | painted black | etc]". It's not a meaningful technical class of weapon distinct from other semiautomatic long guns, or really from handguns. (Handguns can be semiautomatic, can shoot the same caliber ammunition as rifles, and can have the same size magazines.) In any case, it is reasonable that states have no interest in trying to enact some kind of "assault weapon" ban, because that would be contrary to the United States Constitution: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Just like this "human trafficking" law would be obviously contrary to the Constitution as well. I can't imagine how any lawmaker could seriously consider introducing a bill like is mentioned in the article - I guess it goes to show how corrupt some politicians can be. No one should expect state legislatures to infringe the rights of the people that are protected by the Constitution. If someone wants to amend the US Constitution to take away either of these safeguards of peoples' rights, then let them propose that honestly instead.