I also find it interesting that “accuracy” became the substance of your criticism rather than the argument as a whole.
Would you care to elaborate on this?
If you read my edit, it’s already in there. Just like the judge said, modern firearms fall well outside the scope of weapons available to, and used by, the public at large. Yea, there’s ridiculous arguments of private citizens owning what constituted literally military weapons in the early days of the country, but those argument are devoid of framing.
So, in case you didn’t read the article:
“The relevant history affirms the principle that in 1791, as now, there was a tradition of regulating ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons—specifically, those that are not reasonably necessary for self-defense,” the order said, and the current restrictions “pose a minimal burden on the right to self-defense and are comparably justified to historical regulation.”
…
“The features of modern assault weapons—particularly the AR-15’s radical increases in muzzle velocity, range, accuracy, and functionality—along with the types of injuries they can inflict are so different from colonial firearms that the two are not reasonably comparable,” the order said.
Hence my argument in agreement with the assessment.
If you read my edit, it’s already in there. Just like the judge said, modern firearms fall well outside the scope of weapons available to, and used by, the public at large.
Nowhere in the article does the judge use the phrases or words “modern firearms” “public” “scope” “available.” That is your interpretation of what the judge said. I asked for you to elaborate so I would be on the same page as you. I think I have a different viewpoint than you. I don’t expect that my interpretation of what the article says will align 100% with how you interpret it.
Ah yes, ignore the argument again and quibble over grammar and vocabulary.
Whatever man.
