Why can't we simply regulate Assault Rifles like Machine Guns?

[anarch]

60. because they are the ones with all the stuff

like, do you think the banks are going to agree to disarm their security guards? Or rich people with huge estates? What if a bunch of poors get tired of not being able to afford food or rent, and come after them in their homes?

anyway someone already explained what I was saying--and yes, the scarcity of the things themselves is the main driver of the price for pre-1986 machine guns, or else people can apply for special licensing and pay annual taxes on their newer automatic weapons if they can pass muster to get a Federal Firearms License.

So maybe there is some path to expanding the type of guns that are covered by the NFA regulations, you'd just need to very specifically define the technical aspects that you're regulating, which goes back to the first question: what exactly are those? Just an auto-loading capability (e.g., semi-automatic weapons that would cover the vast majority of guns sold in the U.S. today)? Like, would you require a special license to own a .22 like someone might keep as a "varmint gun" on a farm or whatever? Those have the same basic technical qualities as an AR-15.

Of course the SCOTUS would quickly rule any such thing to be unconstitutional, but you could try I guess. But again, any regulation that basically just requires people to pay more money to have something is effectively just a ban on the poor and working class having such things.