I see I was wrong about the machine gun part. I think so, anyway. You said the NRA doesn't stand up for machine guns, but then you said that about the belt-fed 50 caliber machine guns, so I'm confused.
You're drawing lines, but your lines are drawn between different tats than are the lines of some others. You say,
<<<Imo the Second Amendment covers any firearm that can be
carried and fires nonreactive (nonexplosive) fixed rounds.
This includes belt-fed 50 caliber machine guns.>>>
Maybe this is what Steven thinks is a couple too many tats. He'll have to answer that himself. It's a tat more than I feel happy about; but I hasten to add that I'm not claiming that what I feel happy about is what defines rightness in this issue. I'm too ignorant about it.
You say,
<<<To be useful to defend self and home, a gun NEEDS a
repeat-fire capability. Obviously in the wrong hands this is a
heck of a liability. >>>
Is that something there are stats to demonstrate? I mean, that belt-fed 50 caliber machine guns are necessary to defend self and home? How often are they used this way, do you know?
Don't get too impatient with me, here. I'm being devil's advocate, is all. I don't know what's right, in the detail, but I do feel taking away the guns of law-abiding Americans, put just that simply, is wrong. |
