No non-sworn civilian should own any device that is DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans efficiently

[spirald]

255. Sorry, didn't hear an answer to the question.

I'm saying the existing regulations are effective for machine guns, and that we should add semi-autos to those regulations.

You're saying that you think those regulations are inconvenient, and that you don't agree with them, even for machine guns.

The question to you is whether you think any kind of line should be drawn with respect to restricting the destructive potential of individual civilians such that We, The People can keep such potential in check?

The Federal Government is authorized to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Civilians coming under repeated surprise armed attack on a mass scale is a problem that interferes with our fundamental, self-evident rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is the basis for the US Constitution. It arguably invokes our right as "We, The People" to regulate the distribution of arms.

If the Orlando shooter only had a bayonet it is likely that he would have been stopped before killing 50 people. If he had a bolt-action rifle there would have been a much better chance of overpowering him. By "military-scale" I was referring to the destructive potential and main design goal. Some knives are designed to kill people, but can not do so on a large scale when wielded by an unskilled user. Guns that don't automatically reload are more destructive, but an unskilled user can be stopped. Machine guns are restricted because of their destructive potential. Bolt action hunting rifles aren't designed as anti-personnel weapons, machine guns are, and semi-automatics are. They are designed to allow the user to hit multiple targets in rapid succession in order to overpower an enemy attack or defense.

Automatic rechambering is the feature that enables this destructive potential. The ability of machine guns to fire continuously or in bursts is useful in a combat situation, but also reduces accuracy and efficiency, because single-shot mode allows you to correct your aim after recoil. A semi-auto or a machine gun in semi-auto mode will arguably kill more people with the same amount of ammo as a full-auto. There is no logical reason for excluding semi-automatics from machine gun regulations.

Anti-regulation folks never seem to want to follow the logical conclusion of their opposition to regulation. Why permit well funded insurrectionists to stockpile weaponry when the constitution specifically provides for the federal government to put down insurrections? It's bad enough someone can build a fertilizer bomb, why allow civilians to pack that potential in a suitcase by not regulating the purchase of high explosives? I'm sure there are nutjobs out there who would love to go out in a blaze of glory after taking out a whole parade with a pickup-bed mounted M61.

It should be common sense that we should restrict and track devices that allow unskilled individuals to kill dozens of people in a few minutes. The constitution isn't a suicide pact, and the civilian population shouldn't have to go on a day-to-day war footing to protect themselves against insane people wielding mass-murder devices. You may not want to be inconvenienced in order to buy a machine gun or a semi-auto, but the lives of my family and fellow citizens is worth some inconvenience. It's not like people are clamoring to allow unlicensed drivers to drive around in untracked and uninsured cars, for instance.

I do understand that some folks want to live in a world where every home has enough weaponry to defend Paris from the Nazis. I like to ask questions about how far you anti-regulation folks would go because I NEVER get a straight answer. It's always "they should be able to buy whatever weapons they want as long as they can afford it"- which literally would allow a foreign government to finance an insurrection, and that's just not going to fly here.