3 ms·
Honestly, it doesn't make sense to put anything under NFA. Silencers are harmless, SBR's are bigger than handguns, and full auto is going to be less effective i
by damoncali 13y ago
Honestly, it doesn't make sense to put anything under NFA. Silencers are harmless, SBR's are bigger than handguns, and full auto is going to be less effective in the hands of a nutcase than semi auto. There is really no sane justification for it at all.
- rdl 13y agoI'm fairly pro gun but I feel slightly uncomfortable with random people with crew served weapons, mortars, GMGs, etc. Although I trust most random people with $50k to spend more than I trust police departments with weapons like that.
- damoncali 13y agoThere's an upper limit, I'd say. For me, it's a .50 cal M2 or similar machine gun. I don't think those should require extra paperwork. If you want a 20mm or a destructive device, I can understand regulating that. The 2nd Amendment's intent is served well by free access to small arms, I would say. That is enough.
- hga 13y agoPat Buchanan came up with a more permissive metric, "anything that doesn't require a trailer hitch", although I can't see there ever being support for indirect fire weapons like mortars. However, if an armed citizenry is supposed to keep the government in check, why not HEAT warhead anti-armor weapons? E.g. in the context of this discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6186569 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6186569 which touches on the widespread police procurement of light armor.
- rdl 13y agoYes, the basic principle of civilian = police parity seems essential, along with a constitutional amendment elevating Posse Comitatus.