I dont mean to sound mean. But.........
I was in the USAF recently, and just seperatedunder honorable conditions. I carried various versions of all sorts of weapons that joe citizen cant get. Some I do not think should be allowed, but for the fact that there are no safe way to operate them (mk19 machine grenade launcher). Does that mean that they shouldn't be allowed, I do not believe that is MY call. Some people may have the means to operate it safely, and if they are willing to take the liability of such ownership, then they should. That said, operating a weapon such as you mention takes a LOT of practice, and isn't viable except for in a few situations. The military (of all organizations) stresses semi-auto fire for many reasons. Most importantly, most FA or 3 round burst weapons are only accurate (using 3 rd burst or FA) out to about 15 meters. They are expensive to obtain, and operate. Honestly I could take a $800 ar-15 with a 20 barrel, and cause more meyham than most averge citizens out there with a FA weapon. Why? Shot placement, extensive knowledge of said weapon. BUT, here is the kicker. I am an adult, that said, I am liable for any and all of my actions. I do not wish to go around hurting people, nor do I wish to be punished for it. I could take a piece of pine 2X4 and kill with it, but should that be a NFA weapon because I put a rusty nail through it?
With regard to criminals and guns.
Why would one in the crimial enterprize go through the trouble of getting (cough, fingerprinted, background checked, etc) if he/she knew that these things could be used to ID them later?) I think I would just pay some illegal imprter to get one. Any ammount of laws will not stop the illegal obtaining of weapons that are illegal. Look how much $ has been put into stopping drugs? I find such "blissninny" whining to be based more on one's skewed view of their role in our society. Just because YOU do not think its right, or needed, or whatever does not mean YOU have the RIGHT to say its wrong, etc for the next person. There are some universal truths, and they are simple, if you think about it. An INDIVIDUALS right to choose for themselves should not be limited unless it has an ADVERSE and NEGATIVE affect on others. Citing other's posts about legally obtained NFA weapons, one could actually say that they are actually affecting society less than the illegal glock 9mm that the drug dealer bought down the street. Does that mean that glock 9mm should be illegal just because someone committed a crime with one like it?
I can guarentee without fail, that more legal Sig handguns of the model, caliber, and even metal treatment type that you have, have been used in more crimes than all of the legally obtained machine guns in the united states combined. Quit whining, this is a philisophical debate that has no merit, as it is all about "possible this', "maybe that" that lacks actual histoical significance of any type.
With regard to limiting the rights of the law abiding because of criminal use of like products, I have this to say. Go into your garage, look at your car. The make, model and year. Do you particularly like your car? Has a car like it been used in a crime? I imagine a car of similar type has been used in a crime somewhere. Vehicle deaths account for many more deaths each year than do firearm deaths, accident or otherwise. Yet for some reason anyone is allowed to POSSESS one. This doesnt mean they are allowed to the privilage of driving it on government provided roads (they are allowed to operate on private property, without concern for age, ability, etc). Guns have been deamonized for some reason, and those that are not able to look at the argument subjectivly (without emotion, or agenda) start making conjecture, assumptions, and look at the capabilitys of such items. They do not look at the actual use, reason for ownership, etc. If I said that anyone that owns a gun is a murderer (seriously) you would probably get all bent out of shape, because you dont want your gun ownership affected.
Any firearm, regardless of type, length, semi-auto-bolt-single shot-lever action, etc is dangerous. You had to pass a backgound check to obtain your SIG, would you likely use that weapon is a premeditated crime? I do not think so, as it would be traced back to you in a heartbeat. Would you be more apt to (if you were planning a crime) obtain an unregistered, untraceable weapon for use 1 time, then dispose of it. This would be the smart method, IMHO. And you didnt have to do anything but wait a few days, and wait 10 min for the dealer to call the FBI and check you out. Think about this, if you had to fork over $10,000 for a weapon that you wanted, have to be fingerprinted, photographed, and subject yourself to search, and wait 8 months or more to get it, would you use that in a crime, when you can get 10 or more of same, not be fingerprinted, picture taken, consent to search, wait 8 months for the same price?
When any of our gun rights is affected, all gun owners are affected. Just because your particular weapon is not, does not mean that your rights have not been diminished. As a responsable gun owner, you should realize that law abiding citizens should not have to pay for the evil of criminals.
) is that your criminal reccord (i hope u know what i mean, i just dont know the proper word) is checked, you have to pass a test, where you have to prove that u know how to handle guns (eg. not pointing the muzzle at other, what to do when your gun jams, ect.). therefore, criminals cannot get a gun legally, accidents are reduced (no german hunter would nearly get any idea like putting a loaded gun on his dog back!). kids dont get guns, very important! its essentially like your permission for machineguns. i mean you dont seem to complain about that permission, so why should you complain for a semi-auto permission. i think, all of u guys here just want just reliable, non-criminal and matured people to own guns, don't you?!? Well, at least i wouldn't want any convicted criminal or some proven loony in my neighbourhood, having the legal permission to own guns!
