politics

I mean, banning military-style guns is a ban though.

Realistically we need regulation on who can own guns, not what guns they can own.

Not impossible with any other Supreme Court, but this one is vastly different from the one that ruled during the Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004.

Since then, ruling after ruling, the court has re-enforced and expanded gun rights. It's going to get ugly when they hear the AWB and high capacity bans out of California.

Here's a primer on how things have changed, I'll need to save this because it will come up again:

D.C. Vs. Heller - 2008:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

You can't ban an entire class of weapon, in this case handguns. But that would apply to ANY class, such as banning rifles, shotguns, and, yes, semi-automatic rifles.

McDonald vs. City of Chicago - 2010
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

"the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right"

Needed re-stating because D.C. is a unique legal entity and not a state. McDonald exists to say "Yes, states too."

Caetano v. Massachusetts - 2016
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

This is actually my favorite one of these because it goes in an unusual direction. Woman was being threatened by an abusive ex and bought a taser for protection.

MA charged her saying that tasers didn't exist at the time of the 2nd amendment, so she had no right to own one.

Enter the court:

"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]

Anything you take into your hands for defense is allowed under the 2nd amendment. So, no, you don't have the right to a cruise missile or a tactical nuke, but if you can carry it, it's yours.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - 2022
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen

This is the recent ruling that has everyone in a tizzy. First, because for concealed carry, it converted New York from a "may issue" state to a "shall issue" state:

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.' We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."[26]

And second, it sets a new standard by which all gun laws will now be measured:

"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"

No no, you see, we can't do that because of -insert bullshit here-

they'll argue their critics don't understand firearms, or the difference between semi and full auto, or that AR describes armalite rifle not assault rifle... because they have no response to the actual issue - we're a country of 330 million that possesses 400 million + firearms. Too many people with ready access to firearms is the problem, but they can't address that so they'll change the subject to apocrypha.

If you want a real, actually solution, then you must go all the way.

In your eyes, what makes the AR-15 more dangerous than a Glock 19 handgun? They are both semi-auto in functionality. In fact, most handguns are semi-auto, along with quite a few shotguns. Both can have a magazine loaded with 30 rounds. The AR is a civilian produced weapon that the military sought to use with multiple modifications. The AR does not have these modifications.

You say no one wants to ban guns but then your very next sentence states banning a model of gun. If you can factually answer what makes it more dangerous, I just might agree with you.