Quote:
"Should it be legal for civilians to own fully automatic weapons? Should a law-abiding citizen be able to own a fully-automatic rifle? Or is that something that only members of the police and military should possess? As a law-abiding civilian, am I somehow violating someone else's rights by owning an M-16 fully automatic rifle – as opposed to the virtually identical (and currently legal) semi-automatic AR-15 rifle? "
|
The framing of your question presupposes the answer. There is no question about "should it be legal", it is legal. It is restricted, heavily since 1934, but it IS legal, except in certain states that have their own laws prohibiting ownership.
"Should a law abding citizen....." Why not? There is absolutely no issue with law abding citizens, about anything. The problem is when citizens (and non citizens) break the laws.
are you violating somone else's rights by owning a full auto? How could you be? Mere legal ownership, and lawful use violates nothing, neither laws nor rights. Unlawful USE can violate rights (I think I have a right not to be shot, but then, that applies to any gun, not just full autos), but simple ownership and use in a responsible manner? I don't think so.
I'm a bit of a dinosaur on this subject, believing that one should be allowed to own any firearm without restriction from the government. But, if you shoot someone for fun or profit, then you should be removed from society, permanently.
We have had laws since laws began saying you must not kill or injure others for fun or profit. Other than making life more difficult and irritating, what possible use are laws saying what you may or may not own? If ye harm no one, do as ye will.