The whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty" should preclude the idea of banning certain types of firearms just because criminals use them. There are hundreds of things in our daily life that could be misused and doing so would make us criminals, but the government does not preemptively associate criminal guilt with them. For instance, the whole concept of "screaming 'fire!' in a crowded theater" not being protected under the 1st Amendment because it can cause physical harm to people is true. Some speech is literally dangerous and is, therefore, not protected by 1A. BUT, the government doesn't assume that you are going to scream "fire!" just because you can, and therefore try to prevent it from happening by passing out duct tape with which to cover your mouth when you walk into a theater, or making it illegal to open one's mouth while in a theater, etc etc. BUT, on the flip side, the government DOES try to say that we cannot possess certain items because they *could* be used in a criminal manner. Talk about presumption of guilt without due process. ...This is, of course, entirely ignoring the fact that the guns currently up for ban are almost never used by criminals in the first place! Maybe 2% of gun crimes... on the high end... are "assault weapons"... Support the channel, get free stuff, join live streams, gain early access, and more! https://www.patreon.com/JeremyGunsGear Support the channel, get free stuff, join live streams, gain early access, and more! https://www.patreon.com/JeremyGunsGear ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXOBh0Wvnqc