Reply #47: Actually... [View All]

[Saltdog]

Browning first made machine guns for the US military (if we don't include the Gatling gun). First a stand mounted model that required two operators and then a smaller model, which he described as a "sub-machine gun" because it was smaller than his original design.

The sub-machine gun came to be known as a Thomson Automatic, aka "Tommy gun" so preferred by gangsters in the 1920s. In fact, it was the negligent use of sub-machine guns by criminals in the 1920 (Dillinger used to fire into crowds to kill a police officer) that caused Congress to declare fully-automatic weapons (both machine and sub-machine guns) to be unlawful for private ownership.

Defining assault weapons has always been difficult for legislatures, much like obscenity where "they know it when they see it". A statement Clarence Thomas would obviously agree with. There are many variants of the AK-47 rifle, including several that are semi-automatic that will be legal if the AWB ends. These are not legitimate sporting rifles and should not be argued as such.

I think the main point of having such weapons available is so gun owners can feel as though they have a fighting chance against a military government should that government decide to enforce a dictatorship through martial law. While the efficacy of such an approach is debatable, the impact of having such weapons available for mass consumption is not.

I would feel better if purchasers of such equipment were required to be part of a well regulated militia, as opposed to just Billy-Bob (with mental illness and a record) getting an assault weapon for his birthday. Now, maybe DU gun advocates do not share any of the positions of the NRA who are against any kind of background check regarding mental illness and criminal behavior, but there are some pretty strange attitudes toward guns out there.