|
I think you miss the point of the NFA. I't was not to prevent you from getting a fully automatic weapon. It was to send you to jail if you have one. The NFA was aimed at orginized crime. In most cases, it has worked. There are some few unfortunate civilians that have gone to jail because of this act, but that was not the intention.
My foolish uncle built a fully automatic weapon, got drunk and blasted away in his front yard. He ended up doing two years for that. Was he a threat? Well, mostly to himself. Did he deserve two years in jail? I'm not sure, but shooting a gun drunk should give you some jail time, full auto or not.
To the main point of the post: The second ammendment is there to prevent any government from becoming so powerfull that the people can not over through it. Thus, fully automatic weapons should be allowed.
At the same time, the people MOST likely to abuse fully automatic weapons are the criminal element. We need to curtail that.
Thus, we have a dilemma. On the one hand we can allow easy access to fully automatic weapons and live with the carnage from the criminal elements or we can restrict access and suffer a potential dictator in the future. This is not an easy choice. I would favor easier access than we have now, but not so easy as to allow any idiot with $1000.00 to get an M-16.
What do you think?
|