This dumb 'question' was an answer to one of my questions. How do you think one of the Rebels of 1776 would answer? Maybe since we're all "civilians" we should have to to make gun powder from horse manure, sulfer, and charcoal.
2007-07-07 05:33:16 · 13 answers · asked by smellslikeBS2me 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
All civilians NEED military grade weapons...not just a rifle !
"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. "
Thomas Jefferson
2007-07-07 05:55:54 · answer #1 · answered by 7_7_7 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
What defines "military grade"? Projectile caliber, magazine capacity, muzzle velocity, sighting options, cool paint scheme? Most civilian "assault rifles" are simply semi-automatic rifles. As I understand it, automatic weapons are not legal for civilian ownership outside of those that are licensed dealers of these weapons for sale to federal/state/municipal government entities. I believe this restriction is acceptable, since the only purpose for an automatic weapon is for spraying hundreds of rounds over an area to kill massive numbers of things or to impede their movement. Anyone who knows how to shoot is more effective firing on semi-automatic because there is no accuracy in firing on automatic. Therefore I cannot see any civilian use for an automatic weapon. Figuring out what is "military grade" is a whole new can of worms. Your bringing up 1776 is interesting, since in that time period there was no difference at all between civilian and military grade weapons, outside of artillery. As far as personal infantry weapons go, it is not that much different today. The M16 might have a fancy name, but at the end of the day it is nothing more than a semi-automatic (with burst or full-auto optional) rifle with a 20" barrel that fires the 5.56X45mm round. Aside from the capacity to fire in burst or full-auto mode, the weapon is no more deadly than any other rifle firing the same round. As stated above, I have no issues with restricting the firing mode on civilian weapons to semi-automatic since there is no envisioned civilian use for the other firing modes. When debating weapons ownership and the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is crucial to understand that the founding fathers knew that an armed public that would serve as a credible threat to the standing government was necessary to ensure that government was still controlled by the public. I believe this goal can be accomplished without the need for civilian ownership of automatic weapons.
2016-04-01 01:56:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So the King of England doesn't come poking you in the chest.
God bless the Simpsons.
2007-07-07 07:16:18 · answer #3 · answered by Slicer 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because the Constitution guarantees them the right to keep and bear arms.
2007-07-07 06:21:06 · answer #4 · answered by erehwon 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why not? It can't be concealed. It would be a high quality weapon. You have the right to defend yourself. Go for it!
2007-07-07 05:58:54 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No civilian needs military grade weapons!
2007-07-07 05:38:12 · answer #6 · answered by Robin L 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Why not? If the Dems get elected the Terrorists will invade, we may need them sooner than we think.
Alcohol
Tabacco &
Firearms.
Should be a conveniance store
Not a government agency.
2007-07-07 05:36:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
My answer is that if you need more than one round, you should not be carrying a gun.
2007-07-07 12:25:42 · answer #8 · answered by Polyhistor 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well, when you ask a silly question you get a silly answer.
2007-07-07 06:02:48 · answer #9 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
to collect and sometimes shoot.
better to have it and not need it ,than to need it and not have it.
some of you need to get over the paranoid delusions that libs are coming to take your guns.
2007-07-07 05:44:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋