[AbsoluteJustice]

I would like to reply to this to everyone in here AND PLEASE DO NOT FLAME ME for my views on this.

Some in here have probably never fired an assault weapon in their lives and are clueless as to what it does to a body.
I am a former Marine of 5 years and have thousands of hours spent behind all types of assault weapons. I know and have seen what it can do to "targets and bodies."

With this said I have NO PROBLEM at all with people owning them if it is for practice, souveniers, collectables or other. Some use the argument that they require it to protect their families. This is hogwash, any pistol is just as effective.

I am mixed on this issue as a whole. Having the experience with assault weapons I can not see any need as to a civilian owning one. On the flip side these are rights afforded by the constitution. Then again when the founders wrote the law weapons were not firing 1000 RPM unless you owned a galing gun, and I do not bleieve there were any other than the military who owned one personally. Interesting discussion this will be.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Having the experience with assault weapons I can not see any need as to a civilian owning one.

I won't flame you. But the Second Amendment was not enacted to protect deer hunters.

[Lazamataz]

Then again when the founders wrote the law weapons were not firing 1000 RPM unless you owned a galing gun, and I do not bleieve there were any other than the military who owned one personally

Travis McGee makes the point that the era-lethality was as high for a standard blunderbuss.

To wit: With the lack of medical technology, a blunderbuss shot is as deadly -- and as much of a 'crowd pleaser' -- as any assault weapon today.

However, be aware: The AW ban has no language about full-auto weapons. It's strictly aimed at semiautos.

[William McKinley]

Nice post.

As for the AWB, I am ambivalent. It simply doesn't strike me as anywhere near the most important gun issue on the table. Getting judges with the propensity to read what the Constitution says rather than what they think is the way things should be, to me, is jobs 1, 1A, 2, 3 and 4 through 10. On that score, Bush has been outstanding. Also more important to me than any AWB is getting the government to admit that the Constitution has a personal right to own guns. Again, in this regard, Bush has been stellar. And when the UN started talking about some sort of small arms treaty, Bush killed it before it started saying anything that infringed on the individual's right to have a gun was a non-starter.

On the gun issues that matter to me, Bush has been great.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles in the hands of Colonists were far superior to the weapons of the British soldier, in range, accuracy and rate of fire.

After the war, the new government recognized that it was a LACK of such weapons in the hands of the colonials that was the problem. Also, colonials owned cannon and warships privately.

I agree that a shotgun or pistol is in most cases more practical than a battle rifle for home defense, but the second amendment is not strictly about home defense and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with hunting.

[kildak]

Well AJ, I'm a former Marine of 6 years and I can tell you for a fact, pistols calibers are not as effective as rifle or "assault weapon" calibers at neutralizing immediate threats.