[MHalblaub]

"The standard weapon for protecting oneself against a crime is a pistol and not a rifle."

Against what kind of crime you want to protect yourself? In case of burglary it makes no difference. In case of an assault a pistol is better but best choice for the attacker.

Ban pistols but allow rifles.

But you can't accept any limitation to your right to keep and bear arms. If it makes sense to you to not allow automatic guns or rifles then there is no limit to ban any arm. I want a RMK 30 to protect me.

Back to Switzerland. You're not allowed to carry your rifle and ammunition at the same time. Carrying is only allowed just for certain purpose, e.g. "compulsory shooting".

[Ultra Sonic 007]

But you can't accept any limitation to your right to keep and bear arms. If it makes sense to you to not allow automatic guns or rifles then there is no limit to ban any arm. I want a RMK 30 to protect me.

Should the government in the future become an oppresive regime, I'd wager that there'd be at least a few people with the moxy to stock up on such weapons. And I'd be behind them.

[Durus]

An individuals rights should not dependent on the actions of criminals being criminals. Banning a weapon or type of weapon (not that it would actually work) would only have criminals using other weapons, which of course would prompt people such as you to suggest that those weapons be banned in kind.

When will people realize that only the law abiding obey laws therefore only the law abiding will be effected by "gun control" while the criminals will do whatever they want regardless.