Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Criminals overwhelmingly use illegally acquired guns. This suggests that guns being available legally doesn't actually do anything to increase gun violence. If that were the case we would expect a massive portion of these crimes to be committed using legally purchased guns, but instead almost all of them are done using illegally acquired guns.

This is simply wrong. Criminals might use illegally acquired guns, but where were those guns manufactured? Are there a lot of illegal gun factories making illegal pistols and AR-15 copies for criminals to use, or are those illegal guns legally-manufactured guns that are stolen or sold illegally? If you eliminate 99.9999999% of the demand for legal gun manufacturing then you make it a lot harder to get a gun illegally.

And yes, it's probably too late to do this in the US, without a massive investment of time and effort to remove the existing stockpiles of weapons. But it doesn't change the fact that we have made and continue to make a deliberate choice that civilian gun ownership is worth the consequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It would be easier to take gun control proponents seriously if they could actually use the correct terminology and weren't targeting entirely the wrong types of weapons for a problem which actually doesn't exist.

It would be easier to take gun control opponents seriously if they could actually address the substance of the "how many bullets can a gun hold" argument instead of nitpicking over the fact that the commonly-used term for the thing that holds bullets is not technically correct. You know exactly what was meant by "clip" in this context and nitpicking at definitions just comes across as trying to show off your superior gun knowledge.

If they weren't manufactured in the US they'd be smuggled over the border from the rest of the world. Or is there no legal gun manufacturing anywhere in the world in your hypothetical scenario?

Guns are also not overly complicated bits of machinery. If all legal gun production ceased tomorrow it wouldn't be long before you had serviceable weapons getting produced by people with machinery you'd find in any metal shop. The simplest gun can be made using a pipe, rubber band, and nail. With a little more effort you can make something more reliable.

 Peregrine wrote:


This is simply wrong. Criminals might use illegally acquired guns, but where were those guns manufactured? Are there a lot of illegal gun factories making illegal pistols and AR-15 copies for criminals to use, or are those illegal guns legally-manufactured guns that are stolen or sold illegally? If you eliminate 99.9999999% of the demand for legal gun manufacturing then you make it a lot harder to get a gun illegally.

Whenever something has been outlawed and made illegal it only deepens the criminal involvement and violence associated with it. Criminalize booze? prices went through the roof as did gang related violence. When it became legal again all that violence disappeared. When they outlawed pot same effect, prices went up and the criminal and violent elements increased. Nobody was killing people over stuff they could grow in their backyard but once it was criminalized it fuels criminal violence. Attempting to eliminate guns will have a similar, if not worse impact. The price on them will skyrocket which attracts criminals and unlike drugs or booze anyone dealing in illegal guns will by default be armed so it's a perfect storm of creating a high black market ability and having the ability to kill others with the very item they are smuggling.

If you criminalize all guns (or anything else) then somebody will always move in to supply the demand and then only criminals will have them, sounds like good times.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It would be easier to take gun control proponents seriously if they could actually use the correct terminology and weren't targeting entirely the wrong types of weapons for a problem which actually doesn't exist.

It would be easier to take gun control opponents seriously if they could actually address the substance of the "how many bullets can a gun hold" argument instead of nitpicking over the fact that the commonly-used term for the thing that holds bullets is not technically correct. You know exactly what was meant by "clip" in this context and nitpicking at definitions just comes across as trying to show off your superior gun knowledge.

Why not make suggestions on how to impose gun control elements that punish criminals while not chipping away at the rights of law abiding citizens? I can't take the control side seriously when they can't accept anything other than "all guns are bad and should be gone" mantra. This bill is choke full of things that would ban weapons simply on the cosmetics features and does absolutely nothing to impact the actual criminal usage of guns.

Firearms are a tool and just like every other tool they are nothing without the will of the user being applied. The foundation of the problem isn't the item but it's the criminal will of the user (or the user being carelessness) There are millions of people who own firearms and use their tools in a completely responsible and legal fashion, ownership is simply not the problem. Where we need to be focused lies with the human criminal element.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If they weren't manufactured in the US they'd be smuggled over the border from the rest of the world. Or is there no legal gun manufacturing anywhere in the world in your hypothetical scenario?

So I guess you're in favor of legalizing all drugs, including domestic manufacture of those drugs? After all, they'll just be smuggled over the border if we don't.

Guns are also not overly complicated bits of machinery. If all legal gun production ceased tomorrow it wouldn't be long before you had serviceable weapons getting produced by people with machinery you'd find in any metal shop. The simplest gun can be made using a pipe, rubber band, and nail. With a little more effort you can make something more reliable.

That's why I said it makes it harder to get a gun, not impossible. Let's not forget that most criminals are desperate and/or stupid. People with useful skills and ambition aren't typically out robbing people in dark alleys or murdering rival drug dealers over rights to sell on a particular street. Take away the easy guns and I bet a lot of criminals won't be able to get the harder ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:
Whenever something has been outlawed and made illegal it only deepens the criminal involvement and violence associated with it. Criminalize booze? prices went through the roof as did gang related violence. When it became legal again all that violence disappeared. When they outlawed pot same effect, prices went up and the criminal and violent elements increased. Nobody was killing people over stuff they could grow in their backyard but once it was criminalized it fuels criminal violence. Attempting to eliminate guns will have a similar, if not worse impact. The price on them will skyrocket which attracts criminals and unlike drugs or booze anyone dealing in illegal guns will by default be armed so it's a perfect storm of creating a high black market ability and having the ability to kill others with the very item they are smuggling.

If you criminalize all guns (or anything else) then somebody will always move in to supply the demand and then only criminals will have them, sounds like good times.

Oddly this doomsday scenario doesn't seem to happen in countries with much stricter gun laws than the US.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If they weren't manufactured in the US they'd be smuggled over the border from the rest of the world. Or is there no legal gun manufacturing anywhere in the world in your hypothetical scenario?

So I guess you're in favor of legalizing all drugs, including domestic manufacture of those drugs? After all, they'll just be smuggled over the border if we don't.

Personally, can't speak for Grey Templar, but I'd absolutely be for legalization of all drugs, and instead putting resources to treatment and penalty enhancements for violent crimes committed while under the influence of such substances (much the same way committing a crime with a firearm drastically enhances the penalty quite often). It'd be a far more effective outcome in terms of social benefits while simultaneously also enhancing individual choices/freedoms, opening up new, legal, domestic markets and cutting off the market need for foreign cartels.

Ah yes, Libertine.

My sincerely sarcastic apologies for mis-noming a magazine as a "clip". I'm sure it was tricky, requiring many hours of internet based searching to determine my meaning.

A bolt-action rifle requires notably more time between firing, compared to semi-auto. You must manually eject the spent casing from the chamber, resetting the pin, before reloading a cartridge into the empty chamber and then subsequently pulling the trigger again. Hopefully those terms are acceptable. While I own a firearm, mine is an over-under with a break that allows for direct access to the chamber from which I must manually remove my spent shells, before reloading and then closing the receiver. Is my prick sufficiently large to compare?

I could not walk into a theatre and kill 10 people before reloading. To reload, even when acting quickly, would provide ample time for someone to wrestle my firearm away to the point I could not continue a rampage. With a 5 round limit in a bolt-action, could I reload before being halted? Particularly a tube magazine similar to a pump-action shotgun? Manual reloads take much more time than the ejecting and replacing of a magazine.

Regulating firearms does not equal taking away firearms. We've got plenty of them in Canada, but somehow with 1/10th of the US population, we manage to have mass shootings so rarely I had to look back 45 years to find a half-dozen of them. At 10 times the population [actually, closer to 9] one should find approximately 10 times as many shootings in those 45 years in the States. Say, 60?

On one hand, we dismiss the killings of hundreds of individuals every year as "insignificant" while the right for millions of individuals to own weapons is considered sacred. Lives are meaningless, while possessions are sacred.

The argument that vehicles kill people every year is a false equivalency. The movement of goods and services is necessary. The right to own a weapon capable of killing an entire classroom's worth of people in under a minute? Not so necessary. Not when less body-count-capable firearms could serve all non-people-killing purposes just as handily. Quite frankly, firearms can be manufactured with lower capacities. My understanding is that magazines are replaceable? Say, with lower ammunition counts? It's not like we're reinventing the wheel, here.

Yes, a 6-shot revolver would be considered high-capacity in Canada, though all pistols are "restricted" firearms in Canada, so it would make little difference. Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.

 Peregrine wrote:

 stanman wrote:
Whenever something has been outlawed and made illegal it only deepens the criminal involvement and violence associated with it. Criminalize booze? prices went through the roof as did gang related violence. When it became legal again all that violence disappeared. When they outlawed pot same effect, prices went up and the criminal and violent elements increased. Nobody was killing people over stuff they could grow in their backyard but once it was criminalized it fuels criminal violence. Attempting to eliminate guns will have a similar, if not worse impact. The price on them will skyrocket which attracts criminals and unlike drugs or booze anyone dealing in illegal guns will by default be armed so it's a perfect storm of creating a high black market ability and having the ability to kill others with the very item they are smuggling.

If you criminalize all guns (or anything else) then somebody will always move in to supply the demand and then only criminals will have them, sounds like good times.

Oddly this doomsday scenario doesn't seem to happen in countries with much stricter gun laws than the US.

That is because people only consider the short-time scenario. People would get used to the bans eventually, and proportionately speaking that time of turmoil will be a minor one in a country's history and future.

Oh so in other news sales of anything listed here are through the roof.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.

We don't carry because we need to. We carry because we want to.

 Breotan wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.

We don't carry because we need to. We carry because we want to.

Wasn't one argument that you need guns to ensure you are safe from the government?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.

We don't carry because we need to. We carry because we want to.

Wasn't one argument that you need guns to ensure you are safe from the government?

Yep. And it is a valid argument, which is why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill Of Rights. When we, as a nation, determine it is not valid we have mechanisms in the Constitution to amend that Amendment.

The right to self defense is considered a universal right to us, and is not dependent of the 'who' or 'what' you have a right to defend yourself from. The 2nd Amendment ensures citizens may possess the tools for their defense.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.

We don't carry because we need to. We carry because we want to.

Wasn't one argument that you need guns to ensure you are safe from the government?

Yep. And it is a valid argument, which is why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill Of Rights. When we, as a nation, determine it is not valid we have mechanisms in the Constitution to amend that Amendment.

The right to self defense is considered a universal right to us, and is not dependent of the 'who' or 'what' you have a right to defend yourself from. The 2nd Amendment ensures citizens may possess the tools for their defense.

Than why can't you have fighter jets and warships? Full-automatic machine guns? Surely all of that also falls under the 2nd Amendment.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Than why can't you have fighter jets and warships? Full-automatic machine guns? Surely all of that also falls under the 2nd Amendment.

Don't spoil the fantasy.

Edit: Missed the Machine Gun part. You can legally have those if you really feel the need bad enough to fork over the cash. The Knob Creek shoot is based around them.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Than why can't you have fighter jets and warships? Full-automatic machine guns? Surely all of that also falls under the 2nd Amendment.

Great question. I'm not sure why the gov't got so scared of the people they allegedly work for that they decided to restrict our rights so much.

But it isn't like there have not been many cases across the globe where folks a lot worse armed than the gov't have been able to resist. And some states do have those things.

 Breotan wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Rapid fire, as in semi-automatic. It's pretty easy to pull a trigger in rapid succession. High Capacity would be anything more than 5 rounds per clip. Again, just going by the Canadian standards.

That definition includes my revolver.

Or anyone proficient in the Mad Minute with a bolt action rifle

 Ashiraya wrote:
A great question. Why do you draw the line where you do? Why is the 'right to own a gun' more sacred than, say, the 'right to go out sailing alone while drunk'? Both are unlikely, but possible, to cause harm to another, yet one is illegal and the other is not.

One is an enumerated right that is granted to all Americans (and those who are legal permanent residents) which allows that person to defend themselves, provide for their families by hunting, etc. the other is operating a complicated device while intoxicated. The two are in no way comparable, except in some extremely superficial and unhelpful manner.

You may as well ask is a right to free speech as important as juggling flaming chainsaws while I have an airtight plastic bag around my neck.

 Peregrine wrote:
So I guess you're in favor of legalizing all drugs, including domestic manufacture of those drugs? After all, they'll just be smuggled over the border if we don't.

Absolutely. Ending the War on Drugs will reduce crime

 greatbigtree wrote:
Regulating firearms does not equal taking away firearms.

Except for those rifles listed as prohibited in the legislation. You know, the most common rifles owned by Americans.

 greatbigtree wrote:
We've got plenty of them in Canada, but somehow with 1/10th of the US population, we manage to have mass shootings so rarely I had to look back 45 years to find a half-dozen of them. At 10 times the population [actually, closer to 9] one should find approximately 10 times as many shootings in those 45 years in the States. Say, 60?

And might there be cultural, economic, social, etc. issues at play that would make a bigger difference than just the availability of guns?

 greatbigtree wrote:
On one hand, we dismiss the killings of hundreds of individuals every year as "insignificant" while the right for millions of individuals to own weapons is considered sacred. Lives are meaningless, while possessions are sacred.

If you are going to quote me do not omit vital context. What I said was "statistically insignificant number of deaths" which is, like it or not, correct. And I challenge you to find one single example in this thread where anyone has seriously said that "[l]ives are meaningless". Again you are posing false dilemmas to make your point

 greatbigtree wrote:
The argument that vehicles kill people every year is a false equivalency. The movement of goods and services is necessary. The right to own a weapon capable of killing an entire classroom's worth of people in under a minute? Not so necessary. Not when less body-count-capable firearms could serve all non-people-killing purposes just as handily. Quite frankly, firearms can be manufactured with lower capacities. My understanding is that magazines are replaceable? Say, with lower ammunition counts? It's not like we're reinventing the wheel, here.

Do you have an actual argument to make that does not involve the overuse of emotion to use make your point?
If just the movement of goods and services is necessary then we can have licenses only for those transporting goods. Ban public ownership of transport. After all to use your standard of the greater good more people are killed in vehicular accidents by a tool not designed to cause harm than by "a weapon capable of killing an entire classroom's worth of people in under a minute" so obviously the right to own a private means of transport should be strictly regulated. After all no one needs a high capacity assault vehicle capable of mowing down innocent people. We can instead have the government provide transportation, with all drivers strictly monitored and tested, their mental health evaluated, and checks on their blood alcohol levels to prevent accidents or injury.

And magazine capacity has little to do with the ability to harm others. Changing a magazine is a very quick process, so that is a waste of time designed to appear as if you are doing something.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Yes, a 6-shot revolver would be considered high-capacity in Canada, though all pistols are "restricted" firearms in Canada, so it would make little difference. Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.

That is wonderful that your society has come to a decision on how to treat the private ownership of firearms, I'm sure that you would like us to respect that, as we would like you to respect the fact that we have our own decision on how to treat the private ownership of firearms.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Wasn't one argument that you need guns to ensure you are safe from the government?

Wasn't one of the Moderator warnings to refrain from a discussion of the Second Amendment and how it relates to resisting a government?

Greatbigtree is representative of Canadian gun owners who threw the rest under the bus because he personally doesn't want more then an over under shotgun, so why would anyone else need/want one.

Decades ago you could buy any gun you wanted, full auto even, and we never had issues with gun violence even in those wild west days.

Gun violence was already low, and already decreasing, then the liberals passed laws and credited them for our low gun violence after the fact.

Yet now, every time there is a shooting, the call is for yet more gun control.

The same "if it only saves one life" logic that saw mag capacity reduced to 5 rounds is the same logic that can, and will, ban everything from magazines to his over under eventually.

After all, great big tree shouldn't be able to shoot 10 people, so why should we let him shoot 2 people?

He can go buy meat at the grocery store, his rights end where my life begins and all that.

 greatbigtree wrote:


The argument that vehicles kill people every year is a false equivalency. The movement of goods and services is necessary. .

Since you seem interested in reducing the body count by eliminating unnecessary things, what about alcohol? Guns, account for around 12, 000 homicides a year, but according to the CDC, 88,000 people a year in this country die from alcohol related causes yearly and 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases involve alcohol. Throw in all of the other negative effects besides those, such as dementia, other assorted health issues, lost jobs, broken marriages, etc., the question comes to my mind whether you drink and serve out alcohol at parties, and even if you don't, are you as vocal in wanting to outlaw alcohol as you are guns?

 Peregrine wrote:
Oddly this doomsday scenario doesn't seem to happen in countries with much stricter gun laws than the US.

How many of those countries have a socio-economic disparity and dysfunctional mental-healthcare system that's on par or greater than America's?

 CptJake wrote:

The right to self defense is considered a universal right to us, and is not dependent of the 'who' or 'what' you have a right to defend yourself from.

The natural right to self defense exists regardless of law, but that does not mean that the law respects it. Indeed, the "who" and "what" are very important when considering legal matters.

I'm lazy. I rather not break a sweat swinging a base bat at the intruder in my house.
Remember kids and those not happy with those of us who argues in favor of keeping our evil mean looking weapons
Sticks n Stones may break your bones but bullet holes really gawddang HURT

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.

We don't carry because we need to. We carry because we want to.

Wasn't one argument that you need guns to ensure you are safe from the government?

Yep. And it is a valid argument, which is why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill Of Rights. When we, as a nation, determine it is not valid we have mechanisms in the Constitution to amend that Amendment.

The right to self defense is considered a universal right to us, and is not dependent of the 'who' or 'what' you have a right to defend yourself from. The 2nd Amendment ensures citizens may possess the tools for their defense.

Than why can't you have fighter jets and warships? Full-automatic machine guns? Surely all of that also falls under the 2nd Amendment.

It's entirely legal to own such things. The issue in the case of fighter jets and warships is that typically most people can't afford them and things like avionics are classified so you'd have to provide your own alternatives, but there are a couple of thousand privately owned and operated older military aircraft like Vietnam, Korean War, and WW2 era bombers & fighters. With respect to tanks, there's lots of those in private hands, Arnold Schwarzenegger owns the tank he drove while serving in the Austrian army, and one of (if not the) largest private collection of tanks was the Littlefield collection in California until the owner died and it was liquidated a couple of years ago. Machine guns are legal to own at a Federal level (they have extra paperwork & associated waiting times attached however) but are limited in supply to those already in civilian hands before May of 1986 (~200,000 items).

The big issue is that most of these things are *wayyyyyy* beyond the means of your average citizen, hence why you never really see them brought up. The only crime I can recall ever committed with a tank was one stolen out of a national guard armory when I was like 10 and living in San Diego and the dude ran over a bunch of stuff with it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The right to own weapons is more sacred because its in the Constitution.

The constitution is not a graven tablet handed down on high, perfect in form and not to be touched by mortal hands. It was written and intended to be a living document to keep up with our evolving social mores. We've amended it nearly 30 times - as recently as 1992. If the political will was there*, the 2nd amendment could be rewritten. It's not "sacred".

Additionally, the modern interpretation by SCOTUS has really, really expanded in the last 20 or so years - I'd remind you that it was a grey area as to whether or not the right to own a firearm was tied to militia use up until Heller vs DC in 2008.

*and it isn't, yet

I believe guns are necessary for preserving freedom.
Any other reason is just icing on the cake.
If the purpose of guns is to fight against enemies foreign or domestic then we should be on as equal terms as possible. Limiting guns to bolt actions would defeat the purpose of the 2A.
And yes, I hold my rights as sacred.
The right to free speech is sacred to me.
The right to practice my religion is sacred to me.
The right to free assembly is sacred to me.
Rights are "Granted" by the Constitution, they're supposed to be protected by it.

Edit. This article sums up my opinion.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

 MWHistorian wrote:
I believe guns are necessary for preserving freedom.
Any other reason is just icing on the cake.
If the purpose of guns is to fight against enemies foreign or domestic then we should be on as equal terms as possible. Limiting guns to bolt actions would defeat the purpose of the 2A.
And yes, I hold my rights as sacred.
The right to free speech is sacred to me.
The right to practice my religion is sacred to me.
The right to free assembly is sacred to me.
Rights are "Granted" by the Constitution, they're supposed to be protected by it.

Edit. This article sums up my opinion.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

If that is indeed the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I would argue that its purpose has already been defeated because heavy and full-automatic weaponry has already been banned. What actual, practical purpose does the 2nd Amendment now serve, and is this purpose in any way affected by the proposed ban?
What is the difference between full-auto machineguns, semi-auto assault weapons and bolt-action weapons that a line should be drawn at the one, but not the other? In other words, why has the US drawn a line at full-automatic weapons, and why should this line not be extended to assault weapons? All arguments in this thread I have seen so far against this ban, could equally apply to the ban on full-automatic or even heavy weaponry. So to the people who oppose this ban, do you think that all weapons should be legalised in the US because of the 2nd Amendment? And if not, why draw the line where you do?

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's entirely legal to own such things. The issue in the case of fighter jets and warships is that typically most people can't afford them and things like avionics are classified so you'd have to provide your own alternatives, but there are a couple of thousand privately owned and operated older military aircraft like Vietnam, Korean War, and WW2 era bombers & fighters.

Though it should be noted that the FAA has some very strict rules about how you can use those ex-military aircraft. Tons of maintenance paperwork, training requirements, limits on where you can fly them, etc. We recognize that there are some serious safety issues involved that put other people at risk, and we take steps to minimize those risks as much as possible. So I think it's reasonable to expect similar restrictions on artillery/grenades/etc, to make sure that owning them doesn't put anyone else at risk. And once you impose those restrictions I think you'll find that the number of civilians qualified to own tanks/artillery/rocket launchers/etc is so small that it's completely irrelevant from a "defend against the government" point of view. All we're really protecting here is the "right" for rich collectors to have their toys.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So to the people who oppose this ban, do you think that all weapons should be legalised in the US because of the 2nd Amendment?

Yes.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I believe guns are necessary for preserving freedom.
Any other reason is just icing on the cake.
If the purpose of guns is to fight against enemies foreign or domestic then we should be on as equal terms as possible. Limiting guns to bolt actions would defeat the purpose of the 2A.
And yes, I hold my rights as sacred.
The right to free speech is sacred to me.
The right to practice my religion is sacred to me.
The right to free assembly is sacred to me.
Rights are "Granted" by the Constitution, they're supposed to be protected by it.

Edit. This article sums up my opinion.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

If that is indeed the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I would argue that its purpose has already been defeated because heavy and full-automatic weaponry has already been banned. What actual, practical purpose does the 2nd Amendment now serve, and is this purpose in any way affected by the proposed ban?
What is the difference between full-auto machineguns, semi-auto assault weapons and bolt-action weapons that a line should be drawn at the one, but not the other? In other words, why has the US drawn a line at full-automatic weapons, and why should this line not be extended to assault weapons? All arguments in this thread I have seen so far against this ban, could equally apply to the ban on full-automatic or even heavy weaponry. So to the people who oppose this ban, do you think that all weapons should be legalised in the US because of the 2nd Amendment? And if not, why draw the line where you do?

Full auto weapons are legal, they're just really expensive.
Also, the army's M-16 isn't full auto.
Full auto is good if you have a huge supply line to keep it fed. Otherwise it's more of a hindrance.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Full auto weapons are legal

Depends on state law, but Federally, yes.

 Alex C wrote:
Yes.

So you think anyone who wants one should be able to own artillery, without any licensing/safety inspections/etc to get in their way?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Yes.

So you think anyone who wants one should be able to own artillery, without any licensing/safety inspections/etc to get in their way?

Yup.