Steven, you wrote:
<To clear up your confusion...
Semi-auto = fire once for every trigger pull
Automatic = fire until trigger is released or clip is empty<
I'm not confused at all, I know exactly how they work and spent two years of my life carrying the later around. What I meant was that they are really identical to the automatic versions and have been modified by the manufacturers to make them legal(by making them one pull/one shot). Modifying them back is not a big deal and the info is available on the web.
You never answered my question as to why someone would want or need to own weapons like these. Its similar to the question of why teflon bullets should be available or hollow head bullets?
Your implication that these weapons are just like hunting rifles is misleading. Their operation is similar, but, they are generally not at all like hunting weapons. First, they are not very accurate, particularly the machine pistols. Second, they are designed to withstand the heat and wear of rapid fire and to dissipate heat from rapid fire in a way that hunting weapons generally are not.
I gather your basic point is that our society should indulge the paranoia of the few who fear imminent attack by criminals, pod people or the government at the expense of the tens of thousands of lives lost at the hands of these very same paranoids?
As for the constitution, the language in the constitution is quite clear. It refers to the necessity of having a well regulated militia when it refers to the right to bear arms. Key words here are "well", "regulated" and "militia". Using your definition it is fine for private citizens to own large caliber machine guns, tanks, artillery, mortars, bombers, missiles...right? Its in the constitution isn't it???
Tell me where the line is to be drawn?
On a broader point, this stuff about what the constitution says or doesn't say can be taken a bit too far. The document was written more than 200 years ago, it also permitted people to have slaves. So, it was hardly a perfect document when it was written. It is the foundation for our democracy and has served us well. It shouldn't be modified without a really compelling reason. In my mind, 30,000 people a year is a pretty compelling reason.
Lastly, I might have been mistaken about recalling my "gun nut" reference. Your remark about the first amendment and the ability to find info on how to make semi's into auto's really sounds like a gun nut. From that I assume you think its fine to have web site that give details on how to make bombs? First amendment right? How about nerve gas? Mustard gas? Nukes?
|
