Well this discussion seems to be over. Good, responsible, law abiding gun owners and hunters like me are now being called "anti's" by the extremists in our small shooting community just because we do not feel that any one should be able to go buy an M-16.
I follow the laws, they are there for a reason, speed limits are designed to keep people safe, gun laws are the same. I am not going to waste my time arguing with a bunch of people who don't even own full autos and cannot give me an reasons why they should have them or need them. There is nothing stopping you this minute from buying one other than your own finances, so take out a second mortgage on your house or trailer or whatever and go out and buy one (be sure to complain extra loud about the $200 tax, thats not even 2 full tanks of gas)
I have nothing else to say here, there is no point arguing with people who don't listen and cannot be reasonable. If anyone wishes to PM me in order to continue arguing that would be great, but I do not want to cluttle this firearms board with bickering anymore. I realize that you are all as fed up with me as I am with you and I hope that we can reach an agreement. I agree to disagree with you guys If there is ever a government enslavement of the people I am sure I will be able to make do just fine with my 24 (counted them last night ) firearms and will not be wishing I have bought an M-16
Thank you for your time and opinions
YK
I was not one who called you an anti. I hope I was not included in your group whom you called "extremists". TG called people extremists and idealogues. Tossing labels out there when you can't convince people to join your side of the debate will never win you a debate. You'll just end up leaving after having tossed out those labels and the debate will continue without you. I respect your opinion that no one "needs" a full auto firearm. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. You don't appear to respect other peoples opinions who disagree with you. I don't see why any law abiding citizen should have to provide and prove a "need" to be able to own any select fire firearms. If I can own an AR15, why shouldn't I be trusted with an M16? If I can own a class 3 weapon made before 1986, why shouldn't I be trusted with one made in 1987 or later? To me, that seems unreasonable.
According to your own statements, you don't appear to have a problem with people owning full autos, as long as they can afford them. Is that a correct take on your view? If that's your view, then why would you support the ban which took effect in 1986 that says we cannot own any full autos imported or manufactured after 1986? That seems to be a conflicting issue in your views, if I am taking them correctly.
I welcome your debate. I will not resort to labeling or name calling. I may argue that you are taking the same side as some anti gun folks take, but that is not necessarily to say that I believe you are an anti. Just as I am not an extremist or idealogue, even if some of my positions may appear that way to others.
I am a law abiding citizen for the most part, like yourself. I do occasionally drive faster than the speed limit and I did toss a CFL bulb in the regular garbage because I didn't have time to run to the hazmat recycling drop off. But, for the most part, I follow the laws. I disagree with some of the laws, and am actively working to change them. This was my point about slavery as CGSteve8718 so accurately described. Thanks to CGSteve8718 for looking at the issue in context.
Slavery was once the law. Women not being able to vote or own property was once the law. Bans on carrying concealed weapons in many states was once the law. People worked within the law to change those laws. In the case of slavery, we ended up going to war with each other. I don't see that happening with firearms rights, but one never knows. No one has a crystal ball which is 100% accurate in predicting the future.
I don't see another civil war on the horizon. However, a liberal politician, who was once VP of this nation, had a very wise view on the Second Amendment. Google "Hubert H. Humphrey and the Second Amendment" if you are not aware of his public statement. I'm not saying that HHH would be all for repealing the NFA, but he provides some wisdom anyway. Some of us believe we should be trusted with full autos of any year, if we can be trusted with full autos from pre 1986, supposing we can pay for one. Some of the antis (not calling you one) don't believe we should be trusted with handguns as they are used in killing more people than any other type of firearm. Some antis don't think we should be trusted with semiauto firearms that look military in nature. Some antis don't think we should have guns which hold more than 5 shots. They typically base their arguements on what we really "need". That's a slippery slope. When fellow gun owners agree to embrace that slippery slope, I get a little nervous.