On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:47:07 -0700, "Those Minds"
wrote:

I don't know of any varmits in North America that really need an
assault rifle to keep them under control, even in Alaska.

It's not a matter of "need". If I want an "assault rifle" (please define
that) it is my own business, not anyone elses. As long as I break no laws,
kill no people, or destroy no property, then there is no reason to prevent
me from owning one.

The discussion (or perhaps acrimoneous debate) is about whether there
should BE such a law, and how it should define "assault rifle" .

So if you kill no people and destroy no property there's no reason to
prevent your having which of the following?

Automatic weapons?
Hand grenades?
Anti-tank rocket launchers?
20 mm cannon?
A flamethrower?
Claymore mines?
Anti-personnel mines?
Anti-tank mines?
Tactical nuclear weapons?