Originally Posted by
Tiutis
I'm trying to understand your point of view that insists on semi automatic ownership to protect again tyrannic governments and I'm not convinced. You give Taliban an example which, imo, is not a good example because it does not apply to our country first of all. Are you saying there is a chance of this happening in our country? I can't guarantee anything but this is crazy talk, most people would not go and buy AR15 if you told them about it. And if US wanted they could take over Taliban which they had temporarily, I believe. US does not want to get involved ground fighting in country they don't know well. It would result in many US casualties. And US does not want deploy extreme weapons which would result in collateral damage.
Ok, let's say, for example, we were to elect somebody crazy who would turn extreme against us. Imagine if our government ordered to raid our homes asking to turn our AR15 and those that were to refuse were gassed and forced out of their homes. Do you think we had a chance just cause we had AR 15 at home when our government were willing to kill us?
If there was a bill tomorrow to vote whether to allow any more sale of semi-automatic weapons to the public, I think I would for it. I don't see reason for allowing such weapons to the public. Despite those weapons being a small contributing weapon of choice for mass murders but if it resulted in fewer murders committed by those weapons, than it would be a bonus.