Can’t pick and choose…
totallynotagentphilcoulson said: I’m gonna be frank: while I do come from a gun family (pretty much everyone on my dad’s side owns at least two, and both my grandad and step-grandad on my mom’s side own guns), there is no reason for a civilian to own a modern military assault rifle. There is absolutely no reason. You’re gonna hunt and use a semiauto, use a hunting rifle. Home defense, use a handgun or (again) a regular hunting rifle. Or a shotgun. If you’re a collector of militaria, suck it up and pay any potential extra taxes (most of which already exist, but that’s an aside) or get a permanently deactivated weapon for display purposes only.
I’m posting the section I disagree with you on, the rest of your reply I’m in agreement with and I’ll link/source it so it anyone else reading can check so that I’m not selectively picking a post apart. (Full Reply)
I wholeheartedly disagree with you on the belief that there is no reason for a civilian to own a modern assault rifle. Many so called assault rifles have a lot of history to them.
Take for example the AK series of rifle. Many that are in the U.S started off as demilled parts kits and were rebuilt into semi-auto rifles. Holding an AK that’s been around longer than owner, probably seen it’s share of wars, is now owned responsibly by a law-abiding citizen.
The AR-15 has a lot of history as well, and even more so, American pride. Just as the Russians have the AK and vodka, we have the AR-15 and apple pie, baseball and muscle cars.
You mention “suck it up and pay extras taxes”; I’m curious how much money the government collects off of the NFA tax stamps for each and every Destructive Device, AOW, SBR, Silencer etc…I doubt it’s in the billions but it’s certainly more tax money than what a majority of the anti-gun crowd pays (if some of them even pay their taxes).
Also why can’t I use a semi-automatic rifle for hunting or home defense? Why restrict that? The rifles are my property that I bought with my money but I can’t use them responsibly for other perfectly legal roles such as hunting or home defense?
Speaking of cars, that’s the counter example I want to bring up. All cars do the same thing, getting you from Point A to Point B, just as a gun shoots a projectile from Point A to Target B. It’s the driver/shooter that determines and is ultimately responsible for how they use their car/gun. If I get into my car drunk and end up hitting another car head first and killing the occupants in the other car, it’s my fault. It’s not the beer for making me drunk, it’s not the car for making me mobile, it’s my fault for choosing to drink and drive. Why does the gun get singled out as the blame as if it had some magic aura that made the person want to kill?
If you see no reason why a law-abiding American citizen should own a modern “assault rifle”, then I see no reason why people have to buy fast cars, foreign cars, electric cars etc. Why do gun owners have to be restricted on what they can buy? If I want to buy an FN-SCAR, I’ll buy an FN-SCAR. The car dealership doesn’t tell you “No you can’t buy this car cause it’s restricted now.”
I’m going to bring up another car to gun related example.
In 2009 there were 9,146 murders committed with guns. Also in 2009 there were 30,797 fatal car accidents. I don’t see the government up in arms over cars. Instead they want us to drive smaller eco-friendly cars. Gee thanks government, I feel so much safer driving in a tiny little Prius cause I’m saving the world too. Maybe when guns are banned and psychos load up vehicles with explosives and drive them into crowded areas to detonate them, maybe we’ll see laws on “Vehicle Capacity” so not as much explosive material can be crammed inside.