Justification for owning?

[eldirector]

Justification is not needed for private ownership. However, the .gov needs to clearly justify regulating, as they have been very specifically disallowed to do so, in writing, with some pretty important signatures at the bottom.

Yeah, I know we are way passed the point of no return. Doesn't make "the friend" in the OP any less wrong.

 

[Excalibur]

On a personal level, it isn't the matter that should we own these types of weapons that bother me. It's how my buddy worded that he's ok with letting the government regulate and restrict our abilities to get them in fear of people using them to commit horrible acts. A mass shooting is nothing if a guy goes crazy with a mk 19 according to him.

In a bit, I agree, but I never want the government to tell me what to do on what I need to defend myself or to bear arms in general. Seriously, I'll accept responsibility if I needed to throw a flash grenade or tear gas to disperse a mob coming down my way.

 

[TheBoss930]

A better automotive analogy, IMO, is the difference between street legal and not street-legal.

Why aren't race cars street legal? Because of the risk they pose to society...and that same risk equation drives firearm policy to this day.

Speaking for myself only:

I believe the societal risk from suppressors and short barreled rifles/shotguns is between insignificant and nonexistant, and therefore those types of weapons should not be bound under NFA. I don't personally have a problem with machine guns being under NFA due to their societal risk...but I do think the Hughes Amendment should disappear and newly manufactured machine guns should be available to those willing to endure the NFA process. Hell, make the machine gun tax increase tenfold to $2k - it'd still be a LOT cheaper as available supply would increase dramatically overnight. Destructive devices? I believe the societal risk requires them to remain in the realm of the NFA.

Others might disagree with some or all of that...and that's fine.

To be honest, I think this is one of the few post in this thread that make sense.

 

[cop car]

The reason why people shouldn't have flash bangs or grenades is that they aren't for defensive purposes. Against individuals or from a government. Not to mention that if **** did go down, people blowing each other up with grenades is nasty business. I'd much rather have a conflict that is 100% small arms and no explosives. While there is a use for explosives, such as removing stumps and what not, they are just inherently more dangerous and capable of destruction. Not that small arms are safe or you can't kill with them. It's just a lot different. There is really no justification other than "i want it because they say I can't have it." Hell, an RPG is more justifiable than a flash bang. Not to mention that you don't even really need one.

also the race car vs normal car thing doesn't really apply here. That's more of a bolt action vs semi auto vs full auto discussion. Explosives and small arms comparison would be an abrams or a car. While an Abrams isn't needed and not a threat, especially if it's owned by someone responsible, we don't let people just Willy nilly drive them around on the street because it's completely overboard and if something were to happen, even if you didn't mean for it to happen, an Abrams going through a school bus would just be horrible and it's a risk that has no ballance of benifits.

 

[Bsubtown]

Two things. First, we gun owners need to be very careful when we argue with each other that you don't need something. These are the tactics that antis use to slowly chip away at what we currently have access to. I think there is probably a limit as to what should be owned by private citizens but I do not know what that limit is and neither do you. Second, if you can't think of a situation where any of these items are used in a self defense situation you are not trying very hard.

 

[KLB]

A better automotive analogy, IMO, is the difference between street legal and not street-legal.

Why aren't race cars street legal? Because of the risk they pose to society...and that same risk equation drives firearm policy to this day.

Speaking for myself only:

I believe the societal risk from suppressors and short barreled rifles/shotguns is between insignificant and nonexistant, and therefore those types of weapons should not be bound under NFA. I don't personally have a problem with machine guns being under NFA due to their societal risk...but I do think the Hughes Amendment should disappear and newly manufactured machine guns should be available to those willing to endure the NFA process. Hell, make the machine gun tax increase tenfold to $2k - it'd still be a LOT cheaper as available supply would increase dramatically overnight. Destructive devices? I believe the societal risk requires them to remain in the realm of the NFA.

Others might disagree with some or all of that...and that's fine.

Race cars is not a good analogy. It isn't their capacity to go fast that makes them not road worthy, but rather a lack of things like turn signals, proper exhaust, etc.

 

[KJQ6945]

The reason why people shouldn't have flash bangs or grenades is that they aren't for defensive purposes. Against individuals or from a government. Not to mention that if **** did go down, people blowing each other up with grenades is nasty business. I'd much rather have a conflict that is 100% small arms and no explosives.

Not for defensive purposes? That's just a matter of perspective. Like, which side of the castle wall you are on. Are you inside trying to repel invaders, or, are you an invader trying to breech the wall?

As to having a conflict that is 100% small arms, you'd have to get both sides to agree to that one. Good luck.

 

[Buchhaas]

As a retired Marine I kind of agreed with your friend on different ground. it's not that i wouldn't trust you, but there are people who would then also get their hands on them and use them to do something stupid.