Should people be able to own machine guns as they can own a semi-auto?

[Wakie]

There is also a deterrence factor, and not just against a foreign invader.  A group of terrorists attempting to attack a small town, in rural Iowa or central Pennsylvania will realize that the citizenry will very like fire back.  There was a suggestion that al Qaeda was looking at such an attack in Virginia a few years ago.

Ummm .... Red Dawn was a highly unrealistic movie.

Agreed, so was Clancy's novel Debt of Honor, which included a hijacked passenger jet being flown into a major governmental building at least until someone freaking did it on 9/11/01!  

Were there considerations to do this, by al Qaeda?  A small town in VA was targeted.  I like the deterrent effect.

Oh ok, Red Dawn was a highly realistic movie.  So were all of the Rambo movies.

An attack on a small town in VA doesn't have the emotional/psychological effect that an attack on a major city does.  The purpose of terrorism is to create terror.  Seriously, blowing up the 7-11 in a 200 person town probably won't even make the national news.

[Platypus]

that is exactly how your country was born. and the USSR, and france, and Red china. apparently the schools aren't doing their jobs. further evidence that they should be less concerned with porn in lockers than the teaching of history.

Australians all let us rejoice, for we are young and free...

Sure we have a history of guns a long time ago, but i'm always a bit elitist when it comes to guns-not only don't we need them (neither does the individual american), but we also don't HAVE them. I only know four people who own guns; two are farmers (with rifles for snakes), and the other two are policewomen.  Yes, I'm going to be arrogant and say that we don't need guns to defend us, and I'll be even more elitist in saying that people who WANT guns in every home are just crazy idiots. sometimes, you gotta say  being moderate; GUNS. ARE. WRONG. IF. YOU. DON'T. NEED. THEM.

And the only people who need them are police, the army and maybe farmers. If you need them to defend against your government, you didn't do a good job in electing them, and if you need them to defend against each other you have bigger problems. High gun crime is only possible with high levels of gun ownership.

[Bono]

that is exactly how your country was born. and the USSR, and france, and Red china. apparently the schools aren't doing their jobs. further evidence that they should be less concerned with porn in lockers than the teaching of history.

Australians all let us rejoice, for we are young and free...

Sure we have a history of guns a long time ago, but i'm always a bit elitist when it comes to guns-not only don't we need them (neither does the individual american), but we also don't HAVE them. I only know four people who own guns; two are farmers (with rifles for snakes), and the other two are policewomen.  Yes, I'm going to be arrogant and say that we don't need guns to defend us, and I'll be even more elitist in saying that people who WANT guns in every home are just crazy idiots. sometimes, you gotta say f**ck being moderate; GUNS. ARE. WRONG. IF. YOU. DON'T. NEED. THEM.

And the only people who need them are police, the army and maybe farmers. If you need them to defend against your government, you didn't do a good job in electing them, and if you need them to defend against each other you have bigger problems. High gun crime is only possible with high levels of gun ownership.

Do you know that since 1934, when the NAtional firearms Act passed, not even a crime was comitted with one of teh registered machine guns?
Not even one!
And I guess self-defense is not a reasonable purpose either, because the state does a great job defending us, that is why so many people are robbed every day...
And as to your assertion that if people are opressed, it is why they didn't do a good job electing people, remember one thing: politicians lie, adn if they intend to opress you, they will lie even  more.