I feel there should be no laws that prevent a person from posessing the
items you list below with the exception of the nuke as it is hard to explode
one without harming others.
As I said, if I do not harm someone nor do I destroy another persons
property, then there is no reason to deny me the right to posess something.
Hold me accountable for my actions, not accountable for what I might do.
If you start denying people posessions because they MIGHT do something,
where do you stop. I heard that Australia has started banning swords and
machetes.
According to the National Safety Council, A person in the US has a 1 in 1126
chance of dying due to drowning, a 1 in 247 chance of dying fron
automobiles, and a 1 in 4605 chance of dying as the result of a firearm.
Based on what might happen, then we should ban watercraft, swimming pools,
restrict access to lakes rivers and bathtubs before firearm ownership is
restricted.

Those Minds
enjoying the debate


"John Ings" wrote in message
...

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?