NRA

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it just shows the absurdity of the entire argument. Yes, you can get a full auto weapon with the proper permitting and background checks, but the process has made them so expensive, difficult to get and worse -- traceable -- they rarely if ever are actually used in crimes.

I'd think it's a safe wager that if I was a violent criminal I'd much rather have some serious firepower at my disposal. Why aren't they used more? Perhaps because they are so hard to get.

-spence

Isn't it much easier for criminals to get "serious firepower" than it is for law abiders?

And does "absurdity of the entire argument" include the reason for the Second Ammendment in that "entire" argument? Or does the "entire" argument only include the "why do they need" the stuff for hunting, sport, and personal protection argument?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Isn't it much easier for criminals to get "serious firepower" than it is for law abiders?

Not if the law abider decides commit a crime

And does "absurdity of the entire argument" include the reason for the Second Ammendment in that "entire" argument? Or does the "entire" argument only include the "why do they need" the stuff for hunting, sport, and personal protection argument?

The point was that restricting access can indeed have a big impact on how those weapons are used, even without banning them.

The needs for sporting purposes are fairly narrow and can be met easily under current law. The needs for defense of liberty are quite broad and aren't likely to be met under current law...or are they?

Perhaps the defenders of freedom are already quite well armed.

-spence