2007-10-30 13:43:32 · 25 answers · asked by Ethan M 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
That is the statement from the Declaration of Independence that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution was created to support.
How is it possible for the public to throw off such government if we are not armed in the same manner as said government?
It is vital that the common man have the ability to right a despotic government and as such we must have the means to do so. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or sport shooting, it is about protecting the nation and the people. It is only reasonable to assume that the people should have whatever is necessary to protect themselves from despots and that, in the modern world, means automatic weapons and more.
2007-10-30 14:03:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Like fathead and a few others have said, they are legal, you just have to have the proper license and pay the fees.
I think the current system in place is pretty solid. Those who wish to own them have to go through a very detailed background check, pass yearly inspections (for class III permit) and pay the $200 tax stamp.
The only part I don't like is that it is cost prohibitive for most average people to legally obtain them, but the firearm hobby is an expensive one.
2007-11-03 11:18:47 · answer #2 · answered by Crazyjester9 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to the United States Constitution they are already legal. The problem is that the courts do not recognize the validity of the Constitution the judges are sworn to uphold.
2007-10-30 14:18:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
convinced that's criminal a million. it mst be made earlier to 1986 2. everyone with a Federal Firearms license can personal just about any form of computerized weapon would not count number the position you stay contained in the U. S.
2016-10-23 04:20:09 · answer #4 · answered by wexler 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, we may need them to protect ourselves in the event the government commits a no-knock-raid. If a bunch of armed people enter my home without invitation or announcement I have every right to defend myself.
2007-10-31 14:50:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are legal. You merely need to pay a $200 tax per firearm.
2007-10-30 13:48:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Why not? What's the difference? Why should only the criminals and terrorists have all the fire power.
Would you bring a knife to a gun fight? No!
Would you bring a single shot Winchester to a machine gun contest? No!
If you can't compete, stay home.
2007-10-30 13:50:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
I don't think so, I normally support gun rights, but automatic and semi-automatic guns shouldn't be legal for civilians, they are just too powerful. (Maybe an exemption could be granted for professional gun collectors, as long as the automatic /semi-automatic guns are antique, like WW2 guns or Soviet rifles made during the Cold War)
2007-10-30 13:51:58 · answer #8 · answered by Dr. Ray Langston 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋
Nope. I don't think most people could get a proper grouping using a handgun at 10 yards. The average citizen has no use for a fully automatic weapon, it would just serve to arm more criminals with deadlier means. I also don't think that you can use the 2nd Amendment to argue your case for legalizing automatic weapons. When it was written, they were using muskets, they had no notions of a fully auto AK.
2007-10-30 13:56:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 8⤋
They already are. You just need a Class III permit for it.
Many dollars and much red tape.
2007-10-30 14:08:10 · answer #10 · answered by mikey 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋