Should the possession of automatic weapons be legal?

[Bono]

go

[??????????]

Damn yes should be replaced with Hell yes, but I voted that option anywho.

[Dr. Cynic]

As long as you have no criminal record and after the background check, etc... I have nothing against gun ownership.

[MaC]

yes (loves freedom)

[AkSaber]

Hell yes. Damn yes. Whatever else applies there.

[MODU]

I'll just go with "no" (for the reasons stated numerous times in the past).

[Bono]

I'll just go with "no" (for the reasons stated numerous times in the past).

That you hate the fact law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves? Sure.

[Joe Republic]

That you hate the fact law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves? Sure.

Honestly, what kind of realistic scenario do you envisage in which a citizen would specifically require a machine gun to defend himself?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes

[Bono]

That you hate the fact law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves? Sure.

Honestly, what kind of realistic scenario do you envisage in which a citizen would specifically require a machine gun to defend himself?

When attacked by a gang, a submachine gun like this one could save your life. With a normal gun, you could take one or two of them, but eventually they'd get to you:

[Dr. Cynic]

That you hate the fact law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves? Sure.

Honestly, what kind of realistic scenario do you envisage in which a citizen would specifically require a machine gun to defend himself?

When attacked by a gang, a submachine gun like this one could save your life. With a normal gun, you could take one or two of them, but eventually they'd get to you:

That's not really a very realistic scenario... Mind you, I support the right to own automatics as long as you don't have a criminal record. Usually the people who come into contact with gangs outside of the movies is more likely than not a criminal.

I support the second amendment right to own a gun to protect yourself, and if your a bad shot with a semi-auto, a machine gun really takes the guess work out of aiming, lol.

[MODU]

I support the second amendment right to own a gun to protect yourself, and if your a bad shot with a semi-auto, a machine gun really takes the guess work out of aiming, lol.

"If at first you don't succeed, break out the Phalanx."

[Dr. Cynic]

I support the second amendment right to own a gun to protect yourself, and if your a bad shot with a semi-auto, a machine gun really takes the guess work out of aiming, lol.

"If at first you don't succeed, break out the Phalanx."

Good luck fitting that thing in your holster.

[Colin]

I support the second amendment right to own a gun to protect yourself, and if your a bad shot with a semi-auto, a machine gun really takes the guess work out of aiming, lol.

"If at first you don't succeed, break out the Phalanx."

Good luck fitting that thing in your holster.

You forget that MODU is actually 35 feet tall.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Lol.

[Dr. Cynic]

I support the second amendment right to own a gun to protect yourself, and if your a bad shot with a semi-auto, a machine gun really takes the guess work out of aiming, lol.

"If at first you don't succeed, break out the Phalanx."

Good luck fitting that thing in your holster.

You forget that MODU is actually 35 feet tall.

Silly me... So I did.

[MODU]

Have you ever seen the size of my shoes? 

[DWPerry]

Amendment II "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Gabu]

Amendment II "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I've never quite understood the invocation of that amendment as an attempt to show that every single type of gun in existence should be legal.  It seems to me that as long as the government is not restricting the people from keeping and bearing some sort of arms, then the text of the amendment has been fulfilled.

[MODU]

Amendment II "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I've never quite understood the invocation of that amendment as an attempt to show that every single type of gun in existence should be legal.  It seems to me that as long as the government is not restricting the people from keeping and bearing some sort of arms, then the text of the amendment has been fulfilled.

Agreed. 

[Bono]

Amendment II "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I've never quite understood the invocation of that amendment as an attempt to show that every single type of gun in existence should be legal.  It seems to me that as long as the government is not restricting the people from keeping and bearing some sort of arms, then the text of the amendment has been fulfilled.

The intent of the framers, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in US v. Miller, is that citizens should be armed, with arms provided by themselves, to be at the ready participate in state militias. However, the right belongs to the people, and thus it is not reserved to the organized militia. Thus, banning any weapons which "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." would violate the second amendment.

[MODU]

Again, I don't think the framers imagined people owning assault rifles and unloading clips in a shopping center or school killing dozens in the blink of an eye. 

[Bono]

Again, I don't think the framers imagined people owning assault rifles and unloading clips in a shopping center or school killing dozens in the blink of an eye. 

The framers enshrined a right to own military weapons for a military purpose. They knew very well what they were doing. They had every opportunity to add "except for bombs, mortars, artillery and other devices that can kill more than one person at a time" – all of which were well-known by 1787. They did not. Quite to the contrary, Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, wrote in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788: "Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Note "unlimited." Note "every terrible instrument."

And really, if you think any of these weapons properly belong in the hands of the state, you must find some kind of legitimacy in state aggression since these weapons, in your view, are only useful for offensive purposes.

[MODU]

And really, if you think any of these weapons properly belong in the hands of the state, you must find some kind of legitimacy in state aggression since these weapons, in your view, are only useful for offensive purposes.

In the defense of a nation, the military needs to have the best weapons available.  The general public does not.

[Bono]

And really, if you think any of these weapons properly belong in the hands of the state, you must find some kind of legitimacy in state aggression since these weapons, in your view, are only useful for offensive purposes.

In the defense of a nation, the military needs to have the best weapons available.  The general public does not.

I'm glad to see you concede my point on framer intent.
And this isn't about weapon quality. In your view, those weapons only have offensive purposes. They are owned by many police departments, not just the military, so the obvious conclusion is that you support state aggression against people. Of course, that is a lie, since they have many defensive purposes, but with all your control desires you cannot see that. I guess your experience at the military filled you with bitterness against freedom.