Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DelayedReaction
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.
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.
|
Then why can't I own an RPG? Or a nuke? I promise I'll be a law abiding citizen. I'll even sign a document that says I'll be a law abiding citizen.
I don't need to understand all the details of the classifications because there has to be lines drawn somewhere. I know the difference between a nuke and a handgun. If your argument really comes down to "if it's not going to be used illegally, it should be legal", well, we can apply that to everything and anything - not just the guns involved in the AWB.