Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sigcurious
Additionally by allowing a further categorization based on military or non-military use creates more issues based on current and future issued weapons. If we concede that because select fire weapons are used by the military no civilians should have them regardless of LE status, how do we prevent the proverbial camel from coming into the tent based on that. M9s aka beretta 92s are military weapons, m24s aka remington 700s are military weapons etc.
I think the much stronger argument rests in the second line of thought, that if police are allowed these weapons we should be too. While it may not be effective in repealing the NFA or the Hughes amendment(as realistically I do not believe this to be achievable in the near future), it at least staunches the flows of anti-rhetoric which has broadened the target from actual select fire weapons, to those that are similar in design but semi-automatic.
|
Personally, I dont see a distinction (except for current laws), between what a citizen of the USA can own, and what the military can/should have. If a person has a clean background and the funds, they should be able to own what they wish for legal use. Afterall,IIRC the founding fathers were not thrilled with a large government/standing military.
I think the second train of thought about if LE can have them, we should too, is weak. In that why stop there? Instead of US vs LE in respect to the RKBA, it will become US vs Mil then...