[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

Using the tenets of critical thinking, that is, reasoning without including emotion (sorrow and rage at the deaths of children; passion for guns that transcends compromise and resists regulation or denial of access to them in disregard for the risks they bring in unqualified hands) leads to these conclusions:

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms. . . . .

First, to which "specific collected attributes" do you refer?
Second, self-defense or defense of others is not a "legitimate civilian activity?" I disagree.

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

. . . .The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

I do not dispute that firearms are weapons with lethal potential, but millions of gun owners own, possess, and shoot firearms without the "military's filters," and they get through the day without shooting anyone. Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 terrorists killed thousands, yet no firearm was used in either incident.

Originally Posted by Uncle Billy

. . . . The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.

I'll grant you that there are some folks who really shouldn't have access to firearms. However, I'd be curious to know whose hands you would define as "such inappropriate hands." Also, see my post above about the undemocratic nature of rights.