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

[spirald]

264. I think we just draw the line at a different place

It's good to know that you draw the line somewhere.

Prohibition is not a viable method of regulation, we appear to agree on this. We also appear to agree that we don't have a problem when potentially extremely destructive things are either banned or in practical terms impossible to own.

I want to extend the 1986 law to cover semi-autos in order to make them more difficult to own. If a civilian wants to equip themselves with enough firepower to take out 100 people in minutes, we should require some expense and inconvenience to ensure that they are not at risk of doing so themselves or allowing that capability to be transfered to others without the requisite commitment.

The difference between our positions is that you don't feel that semi-autos or machine guns are destructive enough when weighed against the general welfare of the people, the right of ordinary citizens to peacefully assemble and other human rights. You feel that the right to own these weapons is more important than the rights of the community that are impinged when you know that anyone who objects to your community or speech could choose to wipe out you and all your friends in minutes with an over-the-counter device they can buy down the street and not give you a fighting chance.

Unchecked proliferation of modern weaponry is incompatible with peaceful living. We can exercise our right to bear arms in a collectively responsible manner by setting a bar that responsible owners would be able to meet.