I wonder how he would feel if he and his family were tied up in their living room with guns to their faces. A little birdshot in the ass never killed nobody.

A Semi-Automatic firearm is on trigger pull, one bullet fired. Automatic or full auto is one trigger pulled, many bullets fired.

To get a full auto in the US, you need a Law Enforcement OK (From head of the sheriff department), with finger prints on your paperwork that is sent in to the Federal Government (BATF) for a FBI background check that takes about 8 months and you also need to pay an extra $200 Tax. Most Law Enforcement officials will not sign off without a real good reason and have the option of not signing . The Full Autos were also restricted in 1986 in that you can not have one made from after that date. This made a pre 86' M16 cost over $20,000 and you still need the Law Enforcement OK.

Oh snap! I thought I was the only one on this forum that knew this! I find it hilarious that people don't know the difference between semi-auto and fully automatic weapons. Mechanically or financially, heh.

And yeah, fully automatic rifles and sub machine guns can cost tens of thousands. People think they are easy to acquire because they watch too many movies and can't tell reality from fiction.

The government must always fear the wrath of the people if they abuse them too much. That is why we must have the right to defend ourselves. Every time a country is disarmed only the innocent suffer. Illegal markets will always acquire what they want and then they are even more powerful.

They do no know the difference because those who want to restrict guns always blur the terms so they can ban anything that "Looks" like one by scaring the public.
-I am not related to this photo-

Good gun on top, bad gun on bottom? BTW, that Kitty AR is California legal and it looks less scary.

Definitely, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

However, we should be limited in what we can own for personal protection; i.e., a standard barrel shotgun at home and low powered, single fire pistol for carrying on person with proper documentation and permit. Anything else is excessive for self defense.

EDIT: and a BTW, people who use guns to commit crimes never acquire them legally so what is the point of making them illegal?

- You can own guns for protection, hunting, range shooting, sports, whatever</li>
- You can get a permit for concealed use</li>
- Carrying guns in the open is intimidating</li>

I agree nonetheless.

Guns aren't inherently "evil" it is the people that use them, maybe if there was a psych-evaluation prerequisite for gun ownership people would feel differently about them.

An armed society is a polite society. Only a total retard with a death wish attacks an armed man.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to protect Americans from all threats, including their own government. A free nation is one whose government fears its citizens. When it's the other way around (Britain, Japan, China, Russia, Iran, both Koreas, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, Jamaica, France, Norway, Singapore, Luxembourg, et al), you have a tyrannical nation. It's not about hunting dangerous or delicious animals. It's a matter of defending the very freedom our ancestors rebelled against England for.

To all the gun-grabbers who dare impose their tyrannical, uncivilized ways on a libertarian paradise, I've got a few words for you:

GALUTSV ALE AGISDI NASGIHIA (The "V" is pronounced as a schwa sound)
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
COME AND TAKE THEM

Yeah, people have the right to protect themselves, and having a dependence on any from of government, police and ect., it is not guaranteed they'll be safe at that exact instance.

Let the mentally healthy and responsible have all the guns they want. The others, no.

Thats what they should do to those "scary assault rifles". Just paint Hello Kitty or My Little Pony on them and they'll be less intimidating.

But I agree, they shouldn't lump semiauto firearms in the same category with full auto firearms. One can be legally own by anyone over the age of 21 who has committed no felonies and the other can only be owned by a person with a federal permit that is almost impossible to get (the only person I know of who has one is Ted Nugent).

Places where they have banned firearms, like England, Australia, etc. and cities where it's almost impossible to get a firearm, such as Chicago, the crime rate is through the roof. Places where people can legally carry firearms (with a CHL) such as Texas, Arizona, etc., the crime rate is extremely low. After all, nobody has ever tried to rob a gun show. The idea of banning guns is one of the most naive ideas out there. The criminals don't care about the laws and they'll get their firearms and it will be the average law-abiding citizens who will suffer as a result. Just like NBC anchorman David Gregory, who had a 30-round clip on live television (which is illegal in Washington D.C. where he did the interview with NRA President Wayne Lapierre). He had been warned not to use it on TV, but he did it anyway.

If they ban one type OF FIREARM . They will not stop with just that type .

I don't think we should have guns allowed for concealed carry or in the public but at home I have no problem with it. In person the main argument is that someone with a gun can save people's lives by killing the gunman before damage but what if everyone had a gun on them? Would they start shooting each other once they see one person with a gun and then another person with a gun. It's too hard to determine friend or foe during a panicked situation unless you are professionally trained by SWAT or Police.

I believe that if everyone had a gun on them the situations with mass murder will be worse because of all the innocent civilians shooting each other.

I know a weapon smuggler so laws aren't of much concern unless the police find a reason to search my house.