Originally Posted by
myoface
Ok...I will try again. I dont understand why someone needs a AK-47 type weapon. However, if you are able to obtain it legally and use it responsibly, I really dont have an issue with that. However, if that weapon EVER (unless you legally sell it) gets in the hands of a criminal and gets used to kill a bunch of people then I (and I think the law should as well) hold YOU personally responsible for that crime.
The main problem I have with these type of weapons is the amount of destruction they can bring in a very short period of time.
And what about shotguns? Great for hunting, right? And hold a good number of shells. And hunting rifles. Some utilize magazines that hold a good number of cartridges, some even the 7.62 round that an AK holds. See my point. Because it looks like an evil weapon doesn't necessarily make it any different from the rifle that gramps blasted deer with. And if your home is robbed, how can you possibly be held responsible for crimes committed by a rifle that was in the loot taken? If they used your car as a get away car and careened thru a wad of kids coming home from a girl scout rally, would you still want you to be held responsible for that cars actions? Give away the 2nd Amendment and start the slow but steady erosion of rights. Ask the peeps in the UK, who only now are rallying in the streets to get the right to own a hunting rifle back after having restrictive gun laws take their gun rights away. Or the Aussies, who were forced to give up their guns. And crime soared in the months after. Basic right, those guns. Like speech. Used constructively, a helluve way to fight. In the wrong hands, evil. But still both protected.