Re: Pro-gun conservatives demand enforcement of D.C. ban on high capacity magazines. Read that again.
posted at 12/27/2012 1:54 PM EST
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
In response to tvoter's comment:
Necessary or not is up to the individual. It would not be my first choice since it has limited knock down power on larger targets and there ae other weapons that are much more lethal! The point about necessity is that I think the most logical way to decide which guns should be legal or not is to look to the Court's decision in Heller defining the scope of the right.
Self-defense first. To a lesser extent, the benefits of hunting and an armed citizenry's deterrant power against oppressive government.
The third - detterence against government - is virtually meaningless given the massive aresenal we have extending beyond guns. Ok, sure, citizen militias with AR-15s might do a little damage.....
...before the drone strikes, cruise missiles, etc, splatter them all over.
So really it's primarily self-defense and hunting. And for the reasons I've repeated ad nauseum, there are so many weapons that are actually better for self-defense than an AR-15.
The thing is big. You have to walk around with it slung over your shoulder (or else you are probably going to get stopped by the cops, 2nd amd or not). It can thus be grabbed from behind. Really, it's only useful in a home invasion.
But so too are handguns, shotguns, and rifles that aren't barely modified M16s....
I just don't see why they should be legal if they aren't even terribly useful for self defense. They're mainly useful for making a tremendous amount of noise at the shooting range, or for gunning down a lot of people quickly and doing a large amount of damage per shot.
So things you dont understand or find terribly useful should be banned for everyone by the federal govt?