I have no idea where you live or why you feel this way, but you are misinformed.

The term "Assault weapons" is a misnomer, used by the media to define a catagory of weapons they wished to ban. That said, regardless of the name, you are correct that these weapons are designed for use against other people. What's your point? If a criminal or oppressive government were threatening your family, wouldn't you want the best weapon at your disposal? If not, that is certainly your choice, however, please do not try to enforce your choices on me.

As others have indicated, full auto weapons are already legal to own in this country. The assault weapons ban does not change that one way or the other. An intelligent person who wants to kill or injure a large number of people will use a bomb, not a machine gun.

I am guessing (and I may be wrong) that you have never fired either a semi-auto rifle or a full auto weapon. They are a blast (in more ways than one) to shoot! I own an M1A and have taken the time and effort to be properly trained in it's use. Much like our other attempts to be prepared (even more so) it is one of those things that I never hope I have to use (against another person), but if the situation calls for it, I will be very glad that I was prepared. Isn't that what this site is all about?

I fail to understand how my decision to protect myself and my family is any threat to any other citizen of this country or the world, unless they for some reason wish to do us harm. Nor is it any of their business.

Have a nice day, and I hope the powers that be are there to protect you when you need it.

Greg

Hi sbrain,
Thanks for your good "common sense" post. It seems common sense and good reasoning is getting FAR MORE RARE than assault weapons.
It was stated on the History channel that Japan was very hesitant and probably stopped any invasion plans of the western US in WWII because they knew the populace was armed and that would not be a good idea!
Heaven help us if we ever give up our second amendment rights!

No flame war, but I suspect that the one so vicioiusly opposed to semi and full automatic weapons is a POLITICAL (As opposed to GOVERNMENT spinmiester the other guy sounds like.) spinmiester for the anti-gun candidate (PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE NOT USED NAMES OR POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS IN KEEPING WITH THE PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.-FIENGOLD ACT.) and I get the impression he is trying to shame us.

This same person must have seen the NRA broadcasts on TV last night on multiple channels and realized that the NRA is going to be more assertive and effective then they have ever being. For those of you that say the NRA is a monolithic organization, I AM THE NRA, along with over 3 MILLION dues paying members, most of whom vote regularly.

Smith & Wesson learned an expensive lesson as did the last anti-gun Presidential candidate, and until the one party with an anti-gun agenda as part of its platform changes that platform to pro-gun, they have a tough row to hoe.

Bountyhunter

Considering that the VAST majority of gun owners are legal, law-abiding citizens, just who are you trying to "protect" by (hopefully never) eliminating ANY class of firearm?

Troy

P.S. When I find a discussion that pushes my buttons that bad, I tend to steer clear of it.