"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
The long guns you're talking about have folding stocks and flash
suppressors.
There is no good reason for "honest citizens" to own these things without
a permit.

A "permit" to own a paramilitary weapon? WTF? First you say there is no
good reason for them, then you want to issue permits for people to do so?

Frankly, I think you've got it exactly backwards... there is no reason
for the gov't to restrict their ownership. A citizen should be allowed
to buy & own whatever he wants & can afford... from motorcycles to
electric guitars. It is the misuse of these items that is a problem for
the community and thus becomes an issue for the gov't to address.

I have no problem with banning convicted felons, or ex-wife stalkers,
from owning firearms. Makes good sense to me. However, I have a big
problem with the gov't telling me what I can and can't do, when I have a
lifelong record of good citizenship.

Considering the number of fatalities & severe injuries around the home,
perhaps you'd advocate banning, or requiring permits, to own such things
as lawn mowers & certain types of cleaning supplies?

Cars kill far more people than guns, and yet we make little or no effort
to restrict their use.



Vito wrote:
.... The only differences between a pre-ban AR-15 and
a new (legal) AR-15 is that the former has a bayonet lug and the latter does
not - and oh yes, the latter comes with a 5 round magazine but literally
millions of pre ban magazines are available.

I think you'd agree that neither a bayonet lug nor a flash suppressor make
the gun any more or less deadly.

Oh, no. The flash supressor makes the gun much more deadly because it
makes it difficult to return fire. The bayonet lug makes it more deadly
because with a bayonet, you can finish off the wounded & kill people
when you're out of bullets...

DSK