Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
Back to the devil's advocate: Why do you draw the line at assault weapons and not fully automatic weapons? And why not draw the line at bombs? Or nuclear weapons? What's wrong with some shotguns and rifles for hunting and some handguns for personal defense?
|
I never drew a line, and fully support law-abiding citizens bearing arms for whatever legal purpose they wish. If someone wants to own a fully-automatic weapon, then let them apply for the permit and get it.
Quote:
I'm not going to pretend to know the in's and out's of the technicalities of where in the chart of weapon classification any particular gun might fall. But assuredly there will be cut off points. Maybe 12 bullets is a better cut off point than 10 bullets. But what about 14 bullets? Or 24? In order to classify, a line must be drawn somewhere. Should it be just below fully automatic? My impression is that there are weapons that approach the danger level of fully automatic without reaching it - and I have to question their usefulness for hunting, sport or personal defense.
|
If you don't know the classifications, then why are you trying to argue with us about what should and should not be legal? You should know the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle before you try to decide which should be legal.
There should be no limit on what a person can legally own. The NFA of 1934 already limits ownership of fully-automatic devices (Class III) to those who get licensing approval. That's pretty much all we need.