Afx: Couldn’t agree more. Prior to purchasing a weapon in California, one has to submit to a background check and verify that you’re not mentally ill or a convicted felon (the ATF 4472 form).
Like I said, I’m not personally interested in owning automatic weapons, but some folks are and there are extremely restrictive regulations governing the ownership of these. I’m actually okay with that, because I do think these weapons can be extremely destructive (in the wrong hands).
I don’t have a problem with certain regulations, especially those preventing the mentally ill or felons from acquiring weapons. Where I do have a problem is when the government starts dictating ownership rights based on perception.
Clinton’s ban was on “assault style” weapons. These weren’t fully automatic weapons, rather, they were the semi-automatic versions (like the AR-15, which is the semi version of the M-16). An AR-15 is not necessarily any more dangerous than any other semi-automatic weapon, any more than a Rottweiler is more dangerous than a Labrador. The Rottweiler, however, LOOKS more dangerous and is judged accordingly.
My point is this: For those weapons that are TRULY dangerous, such as a Browning .50cal machine gun, enact and enforce tough ownership and use guidelines and leave everything else alone. You’re right in the sense that no one really NEEDS an 81mm mortar, but, like the dude with the 75mm field piece, sometimes there isn’t any inherent harm in the ownership and it’s fun to have around.
Nothing is stupider than a teenager with a muscle car and I used to drive a 1969 Mach I with a 428CJ in high school. I was literally a recipe for disaster, especially when I had Iron Maiden blasting from the cassette deck. However, I knew how much stupid I could get away with, and I always kept just below that limit. You have to trust personal accountability accordingly and, when someone transgresses, punish accordingly. But, punish THEM and not EVERYBODY.
