Reply #60: When I was in Basic Training back in the late 80s They taught us quit a bit about the M-16.

[leeroysphitz]

One of the things I learned was that the M-16, in conjunction with standard issue 5.56mm "ball" type ammo, was designed to not necessarily kill enemy personnel but to wound them, severely. Wound them to the point where a number of additional enemy personnel are required to assist the wounded man, thus multiplying the number of enemy personnel taken out of the fight.

This makes a great deal of sense from a military stand point and is a tactic that has seen a great deal of success on battlefields around the world. Now does it sound as though this weapon were designed with ANY civilian application in mind? No, of course not. So why should civilians have access to them?

I grew up in Michigan. Every other person here in Detroit heads "up north" every November for deer hunting season. We all eat what we shoot but none of us NEED to hunt to eat. To a man every hunter I've ever met hunts for sport, not out of necessity. OK I'm sure you can pull some rare far flung anecdotes about so and so who hasn't been to the grocery store in 25 years or whatever but admit it hunting is a sport and sports are a form of recreation.

I think of people who have the desire to use a weapon that was specifically designed to damage other humans for recreational purposes as, at least slightly, disturbed. I'd rather not have gun toting disturbed people near me or my family.

This is my rationale for saying we, as Americans, have the right to bear arms but we also have the right to draw a common sense line and say to those that do not know any better "No. You don't have the right to buy a Kalashnikov at Wal Mart."