Originally Posted by MteK
The topics in these discussion seem to float back and forth across two distinct points and cloud the argument. First is the right to own weapons. The argument presented goes to the heart of that. I don't argue with the fact that this is the current law of the land.
The second is the ability of the government to control or limit what type of weaponry you can have. Well the law is pretty clear here. For example you can't own a grenade or an anti-tank missile, or a machine gun without special permitting. In California you can't own a clip that holds more then 10 rounds. None of this have been overturned by the SCOTUS, so it's clear the government can have a say.
What's being proposed at the Federal level is a ban on high capacity clips. You can argue your rational for why we should or shouldn't do this, but you can't say that it's a constitutional right to own one.
My point is simple, I do not think there is a rational reason for owning high capacity clips or semi-automatic rifles without fixed magazines and that no weapon should be able to hold more the 10 rounds at a time. This is based on my reasoning that weapons should be used for personal defense or hunting, both of which can be done effectively with those restrictions in place.
You are leaving out the purpose of the public being armed enough to overthrow a tyrannical government.
Just as we did in the 1700's