What's the argument for allowing assault rifles?

You mean the ones that malfunction? Or do you mean something else. Please name some. (in order of "danger")

 

An M-16 is more deadly than an AR-15.

I am not going to make some lengthy list to point out the obvious.

 

So are you more dead if shot by an M-16 rather then an AR-15?

No weapon is deadly, it's the person on the trigger, and after reading posts from pro gun people here, they are the most dangerous.

 

Maybe, however they is riddled with pot holes.

That would leave the M2 Maduce less regulated than a handgun. Which is just something I would say "no.... just no" to.

 

One is automatic. The other is not.

I am not going to waste time pointing out the painfully obvious.

 

I don't know, $10,000 plus $5 per shot seems like a pretty adequate regulation on its own. Who would spend that kind of money to commit a crime when a $250 handgun that costs $0.15 per round to shoot will do the job?

Criminals prefer cheap, easy to conceal weapons. M2s or even assault rifles don't come anywhere near that category. Most criminals are unlikely to even try to use one to commit a crime, so why bother regulating them?

 

I have seen both of those guns right in front of me. Not a single one tried to kill me. I didn't even feel threatened.

 

You are using one of the most restrictive weapons to own and claiming that people ought to be able to own them because few people misuse them.

You are making an argument for strict gun control. I am certain if handguns were too Class III items, and were too artificially expensive due to a closed registry, they the number would be similar.

 

There is not need to be aggressively stupid here.

There is a reason why the military fields automatics rifles and not semi-automatic only rifles, they have a higher rate of fire, they place more rounds down range in a shorter amount of time. They are deadlier than a semi-automatic only rifle. Period.

I not going going to buy into the age old "a gun is just a tool blah blah blah". A firearm is a weapon, firearms are effective and efficient in killing people, thus the need for regulation.

I used to make the same arguments you are back my Libertarian days, then I realized how silly they were.

 

There is not argument, we don't need them on the streets in the hands of crooks.

 

Agreed. But why can't I have one?

 

Outright prohibition is unreasonable. The registry should be re-opened.

 

So don't be aggressively stupid.

It's not illegal for the Military to have these weapons. Nor should it be. Period. But the topic is allowing these weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens. Please stay on topic.

Yes. We need regulation to keep these weapons out of the hands of Crazy people and Criminals (as much as possible). But, again, why can't I have one?

So stop making an argument. I support your right to not own firearms. You need to support my right, as a responsible law abiding citizen, to chose to own fire arms to protect myself, my family and my property.


Thank You,
-r

 

I presume you're talking about the Browning M2 0.50 cal machine gun, affectionately known as "Ma Deuce".
I don't see many criminals sneaking around with a 40kg M2

 

Of course you haven't. You are using one of the most regulated type firearms as the basis of your argument.

I am certain if the civilian sale of all guns was stopped today (still legal to own and transfer, but a closed "registry") the number of crimes committed with all firearms would go down. A criminal is going to use a handgun that costs a couple hundred bucks over a machine gun that costs $30,000.

You are making an argument for strict gun control without ever realizing it.

 

No where did I say that the military should be barred from owning them. The analogy is that automatic firearms possess the ability of a more firepower than a semi-automatic.

The machine gun registry should be opened and machine remain Class III items.

Like I said, there is no need to be aggressively stupid.

1. I own firearms. Probably more than you, 48 at my last count.
2. I have built my own AR-15's. AR-15's are my preferred platform, I have one up stairs with a few 30rd. mags at the ready.
3. I carry a handgun for self-defense.
http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/262034-oldfaithful-ccw-holster-do-yourself.html

These three things do not prevent me from thinking logically on the issue, nor do they require me to be all or nothing in respect to owning firearms. Want to own a gun? Great. Pass a background check. What to own an assault rifle? Great. Go through the Class III process. Want to carry a gun on your person? Great. Demonstrate competency.

 

No need to explain a thing, I spent 10 years in the Military, 6 as the crew commander of a light armoured reconnaissance vehicle so I am very aware of weapons and their capacity to kill.

Killing is what they're designed to do.

 

Then there would be no reason to ask such a silly question.

 

That and lots of criminals that are allowed to run around free because,

"It's not their fault that they robbed the store, or the home, or raped that woman, or stole that car! It's the fact that 200 years ago their great-great-great grandpappy was a slave!"

or

"Because mommy and daddy yelled at them, or spanked them, etc etc"

They deserve the things I work hard for!


And they'd get it, too, if it weren't for my assault rifle.

 

Um first I fully support very strong gun laws, I have been saying that all through these posts. My military background tells me that all weapons kill, and most have absolutely no place outside the military.

If Americans feel the need to arm themselves, to prepare for some sort of civil unrest or to ensure the government don't screw them over, then your country is very ill.

 

I take it you are against private property rights, then.

And yes, the US is going to be getting pretty bad. The government has decided it can do what it wants. It's just a matter of time before they start acting on that impulse

 

Good keep that assault rifle clean and handy.

I am not the slightest bit surprised about your government, look at the population you have to choose from, and look at who votes, it's a wonder they can tie their shoe laces.

We get the government we deserve.

 

By private property, if you mean land, no I do not believe we have the right to own land.

 

Don't need to qualify it. I was pointing out that a gun is simply a piece of property.
Private property is the one essential for a just and moral society. To deny it is to deny self ownership, which is clearly not the case. I do own myself. No one can control my body without my consent.

 

This is why you still have the flag of the country that owned you, on your flag.

And yes, that is PRECISELY why the guys that founded this nation, wrote that amendment.

And Wolverine, I disagree with your proposal. Making guns prohibitively expensive would make sure only the rich and wealthy have that right.