tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post3187077321388935886..comments2023-10-10T05:22:51.727-04:00Comments on The Blanks Slate: How Mother Jones makes my case against the assault weapons ban JPBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16468994137056889334noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-6947360959101697292013-05-30T06:44:58.239-04:002013-05-30T06:44:58.239-04:00>"Stop the divisive "liberals are the...>"Stop the divisive "liberals are the devil" bullshit. I'm a liberal and I'm a big fan of my Polytech AK. The best way to protect gun rights is to educate progressives and get them on our side of this issue, and casting this as a liberal/conservative battle (when it really shouldn't be) isn't going to help."<br /><br />Thank you Guav. My liberalism and my commitment to the right to private fire-arms ownership are inextricably intertwined.Perrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-69184658032787634992013-02-04T18:59:57.103-05:002013-02-04T18:59:57.103-05:00I only like weapons that don't assault people....I only like weapons that don't assault people. Matthewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-47148578296059916022013-02-02T06:39:59.994-05:002013-02-02T06:39:59.994-05:00There is only one outcome to gun control in the US...There is only one outcome to gun control in the US. Civil war. The goal of the left is toatal civilian disarmerment. Wepon control ,in any slightest form, is treason. What part of "shall not be infinged" was'nt clear?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-12559996168073129562013-01-31T12:03:58.713-05:002013-01-31T12:03:58.713-05:00Justin, you seem to lack even the most basic compr...Justin, you seem to lack even the most basic comprehension of how firearms work. This indicates that you are either a very effective troll or simply intentionally ignorant. <br /><br />1. No semiautomatic weapons? Goodbye all magazine-fed handguns, many revolvers (double-action functions the same as semiautomatic), many shotguns, and many hunting rifles. Private citizens would be left with firearms that had been surpassed technologically at the turn of the <i>last</i> century, over 100 years ago.<br /><br />2. "High capacity" semiautomatic weapons? Unless you're referring to a semiautomatic firearm with a built-in, nondetachable magazine, there is no such thing. A firearm can either accept a detachable magazine or it can't. Of course, a 30-round magazine is <b>not at all</b> a "high capacity" magazine; it's a standard capacity magazine that comes straight from the factory with every AR15 or variant sold. Further, the vast majority of magazine-fed handguns sold in America today come standard with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.<br /><br />3. The comparison to heroin is both valid and bogus. Of course it causes you no heartbreak; you've made your opposition to semiautomatic weapons and firearms in general extremely obvious. The comparison is valid because even though it has been illegal for <i>decades</i>, criminals and addicts still sell and use heroin; similarly, banning types of firearms will result in criminals continuing to use and sell them while robbing only law-abiding citizens of firearms. It is bogus because heroin provides no societal benefit. Even if it were legalized, it would provide no social good, apart from eliminating the bad that comes with incarcerating casual users. Conversely, the social utility of firearms is well-known and documented.Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-39802530461666055912013-01-30T15:38:04.685-05:002013-01-30T15:38:04.685-05:00I'd make two more points, Justin:
1. Heroin i...I'd make two more points, Justin:<br /><br />1. Heroin is a "relatively unpopular" drug. On the other hand, AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. The comparison isn't valid.<br /><br />2. That aside, I don't think heroin should be banned either ... for the same reason I don't think marijuana should be banned ... for the same reason I don't think semi-auto rifles should be banned ... for the same reason I don't think abortion should be banned: Bans do not make things for which there is a demand or use magically disappear—they just create dangerous black markets and strengthen organized crime.Guavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16568182455048577926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-23608174091138663462013-01-30T13:20:06.527-05:002013-01-30T13:20:06.527-05:00Semi-automatic rifles are owned by hundreds of tho...Semi-automatic rifles are owned by hundreds of thousands of Americans who use them for home defense, target shooting, and—yes—hunting, with only a small fraction of crimes being committed with them.<br /><br />Ownership of these weapons is largely benign, often beneficial, and rarely negative. The same simply cannot be said for heroin.<br /><br />Heroin has only downsides for it's users and the people around them—it has no beneficial applications.Guavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16568182455048577926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-4390465482987408192013-01-30T12:46:57.707-05:002013-01-30T12:46:57.707-05:00The primary objective of those who support limitat...The primary objective of those who support limitations on the types of weapons private citizens can own is to murder millions. <br /><br />The Holocaust would not have happened if Jews owned more semi-automatic rifles with greater than a 12-round magazine. <br /><br />Liberals are looking for opportunities to round-up and shoot undesirables. <br /><br />Okay. Duly noted. There is a theme of paranoia that runs throughout these comments. I don't think it flatters your arguments. <br /><br />I actually think regulations on high-capacity semi-automatic weapons are fairly comparable to laws banning possession of heroin. That's an analogy that causes me no heart break. I disagree in more than a few ways with the manner in which we chose to enforce certain drug laws, and I disagree with how drug legislation was written. But banning a relatively unpopular and dangerous drug that has extremely limited beneficial applications? I like it!! No constitutional right to get high, no constitutional right to own a semi-automatic weapon. Good analogy.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02991829909756620418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-19433564031001917422013-01-30T08:53:10.293-05:002013-01-30T08:53:10.293-05:00We have been educating for the last 15 years! Peop...We have been educating for the last 15 years! People like Justin dont know what their Facts are and don't seem to care anyway. Why do they "pass" on the Feds having tons of grenades, select fire rifles, etc, but then mention our only right is For sporting purposes ? They hate you! Read a history book. These people get in power and murder millions. It's empiracle truth. Registration, confiscation, extermination. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-71728968627309439952013-01-29T23:30:37.572-05:002013-01-29T23:30:37.572-05:00Assault weapon= made up catagory of weapon, If I a...Assault weapon= made up catagory of weapon, If I assault you with a baseball bat, it is technicaly an 'assault weapon' , thank you english class.<br /><br />Assault rifle= SELECTIVE fire weapon (semi auto, burst, automatic fire) heavily regulated for decades, not available at your local gun shop for just anyone to buy. I am only aware of one instance of a legaly owned machine gun being used crimminaly by its owner who was an police reservist , I will try and find the article.<br /><br />The rifles they want to ban are just that, rifles. The much talked about 'AR" platform rifle is popular for many reasons, if your a vet you are well familiarized and comfortable in its safe use and handling, makes sense you would want one, requires very little adjustment to be comfortable with it. <br /><br />"Not good for defense" um then why do the police have them?<br />"you cant hunt with it" um why? If I can hunt with a bolt action or non-military styled rifle of the same caliber then why is it impossible to hunt with the AR? many people do and no they dont dump the standard 30 rd magazine into the target, hunters are smarter then that.<br /> <br />If you have never been around firearms, never had to carry one for defense, then why should you be the one making up the laws? Especially when you have your own armed security because your rich or a politician? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-30263788650068204092013-01-29T21:00:31.307-05:002013-01-29T21:00:31.307-05:00Stop the divisive "liberals are the devil&quo...Stop the divisive "liberals are the devil" bullshit. I'm a liberal and I'm a big fan of my Polytech AK. The best way to protect gun rights is to educate progressives and get them on our side of this issue, and casting this as a liberal/conservative battle (when it really shouldn't be) isn't going to help. Guavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16568182455048577926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-42050439525278492252013-01-29T19:07:12.759-05:002013-01-29T19:07:12.759-05:004. I am personally putting forth a petition to li...4. I am personally putting forth a petition to lift the bans and regulation against all weapons due to the recent publication of the Department of Homeland Security stating explicitly that that the M16/M4 weapon class is "suitable for personal defense" and only if "capable of select fire" (to translate this means fully automatic weaponry are selected as the best choice for personal defense by OUR OWN DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY).<br />5. If you have not ever used an AR15 in any capacity then you CANNOT speak to the utility or necessity of the firearm. Period.<br />This is the most popular rifle class explicitly BECAUSE it is highly useful and easy enough for the entire populace to use. From the ease of cleaning to the modularity that will let my son swap out a .308 setup for hog hunting with a .223 setup for coyote hunting (when we can find ammunition these days) in ten minutes in the area we hunt without special tools or the need to lug around another entire rifle this tool for self defense has proven itself to be useful in saving lives and property. <br />6. The old saying goes far these days "When seconds count the police are minutes away". I know you can call the police where you are at 0200 hours and have a policeman there to catch the serial killer after your wife and kids with a meat cleaver in 20 seconds or less. <br />A LARGE percentage of the population live where the police might take a half hour or even several hours to get to them to put chalk outlines around their bodies after the crimes have been committed. Definitely never in time to actually prevent a crime. <br />7.ASSAULT RIFLES WERE designed to kill large quantities of people. The term of art "assault weapons" has no existence outside of bullshit liberal doublespeak. It simply was made up due to the negative connotations with the correct name for the M16 and AKM which is Assault Rifle. <br />The AR15 weapon platform is designed to be easy to use, easy to maintain, easy to train with, and easy to modify. It is not designed to "kill lots of people" any more than a school bus is. If it was, it would be select fire (fully automatic) and would fire a larger round. <br />The Browning Machine Gun was designed to kill lots of people. The German MP40 was designed to kill a lot of people. And it did....Right after the progressives pushed for disarmament for everyone but the police and the military. <br />I know your liberal arts college was more concerned with preventing the eating of paste glue than with teaching you anything about history but pick up a book once in a while. You progressives sweep in after about twenty years of peace and start talking about the Utopia that would exist if everyone got rid of their nasty implements of self defense. Then after you natter on for a couple of decades and convince enough weak minded people to give up their basic human right to self defense some Uber-progressive steps in and shoots all the undesirables in the name of that Utopia. WE know these things. WE have studied history and know that your dream world of unicorns and rainbows is only fit for preschoolers.Eainsdadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07717453071510226866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-20453830009637006582013-01-29T19:06:45.489-05:002013-01-29T19:06:45.489-05:00This is directed at ALL of the gun grabbers.
1. I...This is directed at ALL of the gun grabbers.<br />1. If you don't like guns, don't buy them. Don't use the police for protection as they have large capacity handguns and large capacity select fire weapons available to them and on their person when they answer your call. Don't depend on Homeland Security for anything; they just put in a requisition for 7000 of these 'horrible magical doomsday' weapons. Don't check with the national parks service or the national weather service for safety information; they just bought HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of hollow point bullets for handguns.<br />2. Incrementally increasing the difficulty for an insane person to kill a dozen people is not a reason to subject hundreds of thousands of people to arrest and to felony conviction and even the threat of lethal force used against them by the police (that again have the high capacity pistols and assault weapons in their cars when they come to your house).<br />3. We keep saying it and you liberals keep ignoring it: Mental health policy as established by progressive governmental actions are the direct cause of the problems with mass killings seen today. Change your minds about the problem and actually fix the root cause. Crazy people and evil people have been around as long as history. Attila the Hun did not use assault weapons to kill millions of people. Vlad Dracul did not use assault weapons to kill tens of thousands of his countrymen. Cain did not use an assault weapon to kill Abel. The emperor of (insert any country prior to 1845 that had an emperor) did not use assault weapons to subjugate and slaughter the innocent.<br />Eainsdadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07717453071510226866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-60356296875021622532013-01-29T11:54:33.089-05:002013-01-29T11:54:33.089-05:00Justin, the problem is that what you are envisioni...Justin, the problem is that what you are envisioning as a "hurdle" (high, difficult to get over) is in reality more akin to a small speed bump. It offers no protection, and poses no obstacle. It will amplify the existing black market in firearms, with a concomitant increase in organized crime and violence. Do you suppose the War on Drugs to have been a resounding success?JayeRandomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17586919839111778357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-28902632917838550802013-01-29T11:17:10.038-05:002013-01-29T11:17:10.038-05:00I'd just like to ask everyone who is pro semi-...I'd just like to ask everyone who is pro semi-automatic ban(that is what it is, NOT an "AWB")...<br /><br />Hows that war on drugs coming along?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-91311391569954108072013-01-29T10:54:23.119-05:002013-01-29T10:54:23.119-05:00Of course all this assumes that a killer like the ...Of course all this assumes that a killer like the one in Newton would call off his planned murder spree if firearms of whatever type are not available. That’s a foolish assumption. He would merely find another way. A garden sprayer full of gasoline and a book of matches would be as effective and every bit as horrific- after all, he had decided to murder helpless children. What do mass murderers do in countries where any type of firearm is restricted or unobtainable? Car bombs, toxic gas, etc. Toxic gasses are easily made from common household cleaning agents, and are far more deadly than any gun I can own. Banning this or that is no more effective than treating a symptom of a deadly illness, because the disease is still out there. You have to do a little root cause analysis and find the common denominator- then ban that.<br /><br />What I find most stunning is that you should KNOW the politicians are aware of the stats (so-called assault weapons use in crime) and they are trying to do something that will NOT prevent future mass killings! So what are we to learn from that? That the politicians are using the dead children to push an agenda they already had, and only needed some catalyst to give momentum to. That’s truly despicable.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-27115919883489291102013-01-29T10:47:51.433-05:002013-01-29T10:47:51.433-05:00""Assault weapons are not reasonably use...""Assault weapons are not reasonably used for personal protection."<br /><br />The Department of Homeland Security just ordered 7,000 of them. Of course, when they want to use them, they're "personal defense weapons". (The ones they ordered are even fully-automatic machine guns, not semi-automatic rifles available to civilians.)<br /><br />The Federal government seems to think that these kinds of rifles are IDEAL for personal protection, otherwise they'd be ordering something else to fit the "personal defense" role.<br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/homeland-security-seeking-7000-assault-weapons-per/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05796690368588471378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-31950027880454609802013-01-29T10:31:27.094-05:002013-01-29T10:31:27.094-05:00Justin:
The only flaw with your logic is that the...Justin:<br /><br />The only flaw with your logic is that the incidents of defensive gun use where lives are saved substantially outweigh lives lost to "assault weapon" or other gun crime in the US. By making it harder for law abiding citizens to get their hands on firearms, you are denying them the beneficial use/ability to defend themselves. You may make it harder for a mass shooter to get his hands on guns, but you net more lives lost as a result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-46803001657708490662013-01-29T10:30:50.449-05:002013-01-29T10:30:50.449-05:00"Okay, then "heavily regulate" assa..."Okay, then "heavily regulate" assault weapons like we do hand grenades."<br /><br />Why? WHY? <br />Why "heavily regulate" a class of firearms that ARE NOT commonly used to kill people ion the United States? You have a solution in search of a problem, it seems.<br /><br />"My point is that placing additional hurdles between mass killers and the types of weapons they use to commit mass killing is a net benefit to a society that wishes to have less mass killings."<br /><br />And my point is that placing additional hurdles between millions of honest citizens and effective self defense or shooting sports in the off chance that it MIGHT possibly prevent an instance of a mass shooting, which themselves are exceptionally rare in the first place, is absolutely absurd. That's how bad laws get passed.<br /><br />Furthermore, I think part of the reason you keep going on about "assault weapons" is because quite frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. At the beginning of this conversation you thought we were talking about machine guns. You do not seem to be well versed in the technical or functional details of the weapons being discussed, which unfortunately, matters a great deal when discussing what regulating these arms could reasonably hope to accomplish, or what farther reaching impact it will have on average gun owners.<br /><br />"Assault weapons are not reasonably used for personal protection. They are not necessary for hunting."<br /><br />The fact that you are apparently unaware that these weapons are EXCEPTIONALLY good for self defense, and ARE used in hunting applications further shows your ignorance on the topic. And please understand that I do not mean that in an insulting way.<br /><br />I'm not James Reis, and I'm not turning this into a cultural war. For what it's worth, I'm a liberal.Guavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16568182455048577926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-69138271768343129942013-01-29T10:28:49.663-05:002013-01-29T10:28:49.663-05:00The point is that it's not reasonable. It'...The point is that it's not reasonable. It's technically pointless--magazines can be changed by a skilled shooter in a second or two (the VT shooter had a backpack full of magazines)--and it will do nothing to keep them out of the hands of people who want them. You're talking about a sheet metal box with a spring in it. There are tens of millions of them in private possession. The attempt at a prohibition will be a useless waste of scarce resources that can be used better otherwise. <br /><br />And if these devices are made for the "exclusive purpose of killing mass amounts of people", why does the police have them? (Theirs are true machine guns, even--capable of burst fire, which the civiilian models aren't.) And why does the proposed ban--as every such ban before it--exempt law enforcement?<br /><br />Cops are the experts when it comes to defending innocents against criminals. If they think that the semi-automatic rifle with high-capacity magazines is the best possible tool for that job, then it damn sure is the best possible tool for me as well. If anything, I need high-capacity magazines even more. Someone kicks down my door at night, all I have is the rifle in my hands. I won't have a bag of spare magazines, a bullet-proof vest, or a radio to summon a dozen more of my similarly armed friends at top speed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05796690368588471378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-49160464975661458842013-01-29T10:08:02.256-05:002013-01-29T10:08:02.256-05:00Okay, then "heavily regulate" assault we...Okay, then "heavily regulate" assault weapons like we do hand grenades. The distinction between enforcing a "ban" and enforcing "heavy regulations" can be mighty slim, correct? I did not detail the specific language of any proposed legislation, because I was more interested in a broader point. Is any legislation on gun control worth considering? <br /><br />My point is that placing additional hurdles between mass killers and the types of weapons they use to commit mass killing is a net benefit to a society that wishes to have less mass killings. Laws that create these hurdles will not prevent all future mass killings, but the potential costs (in terms of personal liberty and dollars) of such laws are insignificant. <br /><br />As for the statistics re: the ineffectiveness of the prior assault weapons ban -- can anything be gleaned from such a small data set? Mass killings are exceedingly rare in terms of their frequency in proportion to the billions of people in our country. The prior assault weapons ban was exceedingly limited in its scope. When we are dealing with a sample set of less than 50 incidents over a ten-year time period, I'd suggest that the numbers do not provide much guidance as to the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of the ban. This type of legislation takes time. <br /><br />In the absence of statistical proof, we are left with a conceptual question. Are assault weapons the sort of thing governments should regulate. Assault weapons are not reasonably used for personal protection. They are not necessary for hunting. They will not prevent government tyranny. (The genie is out of the bottle on that one. I don't think our government is too concerned about being toppled by James Reis and his buddies. Guerrilla warfare in 3d world countries is one thing, but this is america we're talking about. our citizenry is just a touch out of fighting shape, if you know what I mean.) <br /><br />Assault weapons are made to kill masses of people. If your view of "personal liberty" prohibits the government from regulating the ownership of devices made for the exclusive purposed of killing mass amounts of people, then I'd suggest you have a fairly radical view of liberty. If the government cannot regulate the ownership of assault weapons, what can it regulate? <br /><br />If we can agree that regulation of weapons is and should be within the powers of the government, then lets start to discuss what reasonable legislation would look like (i.e. -- argue about why a 6 round limit is inappropriate and a 12 round is) and stop turning the debate into a cultural war. Discussion about what a reasonable law should look like seems a lot more productive than simply refusing to consider any type of legislation whatsoever.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02991829909756620418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-619322807568282802013-01-29T09:37:13.433-05:002013-01-29T09:37:13.433-05:00"I am not impressed that denying ordinary cit..."I am not impressed that denying ordinary citizens the chance to own military-style weapons is a great loss to society."<br /><br />Just to be clear, the military version of the AR-15 (a true assault rifle) can fire 800 rounds per minute. The civilian version can fire only about 40-60 aimed shots per minute—one bullet per trigger pull. The same as a hunting rifle (which are more powerful). The same as a handgun (which are more concealable). The same as a revolver, for that matter. The military "style" in this case is one of aesthetics, not functionality. <br /><br />"These weapons are extremely dangerous."<br /><br />All weapons are, by nature. Or they wouldn't be weapons.<br /><br />"They are made to be extremely deadly." <br /><br />All guns are, not just semi-automatic sporting rifles.<br /><br />"They serve no purpose other than to be deadly."<br /><br />Millions of sport shooters across the world (and many Olympians) would disagree with you, but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend you're right. Yes, firearms are deadly and that is the point when it comes to self defense. But the thing about defensive weapons is that the deadlier they are, the less likely you'll actually have to use them. If I confront a burglar in my home with my martial arts, I'll almost certainly have to physically engage him, which makes it more likely that one of us is going to the hospital. Same goes for mace or a stun gun. If I pull out a knife or a machete, the chance of him getting killed goes up, and self-preservation might make him flee. Unless he's armed as well, in which case we're back to square one. But the nice thing about firearms is that the fact that they are so deadly means that quite often, you don't actually HAVE to kill anyone (or even shoot them) in order for them to be used effectively in self defense (recent case in point: http://www.examiner.com/article/rit-student-scares-off-home-intruder-with-ar-15).<br /><br />The question that needs to be answered is, why, when rifles of ANY kind are used in only 3% of homicides in this country—with handguns being the weapon of choice—are we discussing restrictions on these rifles AT ALL? More people are killed with hands and feet every year than with assault rifles—literally. Guavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16568182455048577926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-25413086969571050402013-01-29T09:36:32.501-05:002013-01-29T09:36:32.501-05:00Hand grenades and bazookas are not suitable for sp...Hand grenades and bazookas are not suitable for sporting purposes or self defense of one's person or home. Rifles, on the other hand, are. Hundreds of thousands of these semi-automatic rifles being discussed are owned by Americans who use them for a variety of legitimate purposes, and are virtually never used in crimes—the portion of crimes using semi-automatic rifles is statistically insignificant.<br /><br />Guavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16568182455048577926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-71558628479412811152013-01-29T09:09:27.814-05:002013-01-29T09:09:27.814-05:00Look at FBI UCR data. Rifles are used in 2% - 3% ...Look at FBI UCR data. Rifles are used in 2% - 3% of all violent crime. Also, 'assault weapons' include any weapon used in an assault, so broken bottles, knives, hands, feet, tire irons...<br /><br />My firearms will never be used to assault someone as that is against the law. Mine are used for hunting, sport and to keep this member of teh Irregular Militia under teh Dick Act of 1902 well regulated. Armed_Liberal_in_MOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03311983593456681261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-67602376256349542532013-01-29T07:40:03.839-05:002013-01-29T07:40:03.839-05:00Actually, neither hand grenades, bazooka rockets, ...Actually, neither hand grenades, bazooka rockets, nor fighter jets are banned from civilian ownership in the USA. <br />The grenades and bazooka rockets are classified as "destructive devices" and heavily regulated; but not banned.<br /> The biggest obstacle to the ownership of fighter jets is financial, they are frighteningly expensive to buy and then monstrously expensive to maintain and fly, to say nothing of the hoops needed to jump through to get and keep FAA certification.<br />Go here: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/54073/Mitterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390886270451852354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6477941359267770660.post-79535346140867241482013-01-22T19:49:33.120-05:002013-01-22T19:49:33.120-05:00first, there's something illogical about sayin...first, there's something illogical about saying "semi-automatic long guns with capacities of 6 rounds of more. (six being a relatively arbitrary number)": why are we running with an arbitrary number? second, considering that you're talking about rifles that can take detachable magazines, there's something a little deceitful about planning to ban rifles based on their "capacity." third, "military-style" remains a little fictional: presumably you're wanting to ban semi-automatic rifles that have never been designed for or used by any military, while excepting rifles that were designed for and used by military forces because they do not meet your arbitrary standards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com