CDZ Should Americans be allowed to own military sniper rifles and military door buster guns?

[Slade3200]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Yes those guns should be banned. I believe guns should be used for defensive purposes unless you’re hunting... you don’t need either of those guns for defense or for hunting.

You don't understand anything....the "Military Sniper Rifle" I listed in the first post is simply a typical deer hunting rifle, a rifle the army uses for snipers......the common deer hunting rifle......you don't understand the topic, you don't understand the issues and this is why we do not trust you and the other anti-gunners to make laws or policy that impact the Right...yes, the Right, to keep and bear arms.

I got me with your play on words. I’ll give you that. I own a shotgun and and several bolt action riffles. Have no issue with them.

if I was actually voting id dig deeper than word play.

 

[danielpalos]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

No. The unorganized militia has already proved to be worthless to the security of our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Innocynioc]

Absolutely yes!

 

[2aguy]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Yes those guns should be banned. I believe guns should be used for defensive purposes unless you’re hunting... you don’t need either of those guns for defense or for hunting.

Wrong.....you want to ban pump action shotguns......those are the door busters that I posted about in the first post.....this simply shows you don't know anything about the topic you are posting about, you know nothing about guns, and you simply do not understand any of the issues involved in guns and gun ownership.

Oh you’re playing tricks. I get it. I own a shotgun btw. Have no problem with them. Most effective weapon for home security IMO

Not a trick, the truth....the new bait and switch of the anti-gun movement is lying when they say the don't want "military" weapons in the hands of civilians....

The pump action shotgun is a military weapon.

The bolt action rifle is a military weapon.

The revolver is a military weapon.

The Lever action rifle is a military weapon.

The AR-15? Not used by any arm of the United States military.........

So, according to you, we can only own the AR-15 rifle.

 

[Picaro]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Yes those guns should be banned. I believe guns should be used for defensive purposes unless you’re hunting... you don’t need either of those guns for defense or for hunting.

'Original Intent' re the 2nd covered black powder weapons. My state still doesn't restrict owning or carrying those. If the fetisihists want to tote around their black powder rifles, fine, nobody cares. The fact is the states determined who could carry, and did so right up to today, and their 'interpretations' are just rubbish re carrying the kind of weapons available today, and the Founders would have restricted modern weapons if they were around today as well.

 

[Picaro]

In 2017 gun deaths reached their highest since 1968, gun deaths have gone both up & down over the years. but senseless deaths by unexperienced gun users has increased. way more than the 6 stated by M14.
Maybe some anti gun person can show some of the many incidences, as I am pro gun,& anti untrained gun nut.

The problem with what you want? Any attempt to require training before owning and/or carrying a gun allows the government, to jack up the fees and testing requirements to the point that normal people will never be able to meet them.....because they can't afford the time, the money or going through the red tape.....you allow them to ban guns through bureaucracy.....this is exactly how they do it in Europe for the few models of bird hunting shotguns they allow people to own.

The regulations are so extreme only the rich and the politically connected can get those licenses and permits.

And considering how small the accidental death rate from gun ownership is, you wouldn't have the justification anyway.......

The way to increase gun safety? Cut the fees on using guns and for training with guns......sponsor ad campaigns encouraging people to go to the range and get training and practice......but, you will notice....that isn't what your way would achieve.....your way would make fewer people competent around guns......

The regulations are so extreme only the rich and the politically connected can get those licenses and permits.

lol and those are exactly who most of the 'Founders' thought were the only 'qualified' citizens who should be allowed to vote and determine who and what 'everybody else' could own, within their own states. Yours and your fellow cranks here cognitive dissonance on original intent and trying to carry that to some logical extreme in the modern era is what makes your obsession with military hardware a mental illness. Your cult is just as loony and deranged as the left's is in the other direction. The day is just never going to come when you can just go to your local Walmart or convenience store and buy a mortar and shells or a land mine, no matter what rubbish you post on innernutz message boards to make each other feel 'Speshul N Stuff'..

Are you aware that when the Constitution was written common citizens could own cannon and private warships? The founders didn’t have a problem with that or they would have written exceptions into the Second Amendment. Based upon that I believe that citizens should be able to own any weapon in common usage by the military. And I don’t exclude tanks, artillery, combat aircraft and warships.

Who could carry and who couldn't was determined by state law, not Federal. And the weaponry back then wasn't the same as we have now, as anybody with any common sense left knows. nobody wants Goober down the street rolling his tank up and down the street or building his own nuke in his garage on weekends. They certainly don't want to listen to some moron practice shooting his cannon in his back yard. You can believe anything you want, as long as it doesn't lower my property values by leaving craters and bullet holes all over the street and making the place sound like an artillery range at Ft . Hood every weekend. None of that silly shit will do a thing to protect anybody from crime, and none of you aren't going to be any great 'freedom fighter' at the end of the day, either.

When I lived in California, I knew of two people who owned WWII armored cars and one who owned a fully operational tank (the main gun was demilitarized and the coax and hull M1919s were dummies).
I even knew one guy that owned at least fifty operational tanks, a dozen or so armored cars of various vintages and over a hundred military vehicles. He started out as a collector and wound up providing vehicles to the TV and movie industry. I also knew a guy that owned a WWII DUKW amphibious truck that was licensed for the street as well as registered as a boat that he occasionally drove down to the marina and tooled around for fun.

So what? Your anecdotal BS has little to do with original intent. You want to parade around with those black powder weapons the 2nd Amendment covered go ahead. My state doesn't restrict them. Too bad almost every business doesn't want people carrying that stuff around on their property, but you fetishists want to force them to. Where is that in the 2nd A? Like I said, suddenly the 2nd cultists are all about cramming Federal law down peoples' throats when it suits their latest fashionable sloganeering.

 

[Picaro]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?

If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!

ABSOLUTELY! And they are useful against statist mother fr's too!

Will they do any good at picking off a terrorist enraged over the ButterFingers Shortage in the Candy aisle if you're over in Automotive? Or would a sidearm nobody knows you have be the more sensible choice? Wouldn't the store's ceiling kind of screw up using a mortar to take them out? Would you be willing to pay for damages if you ran out and fired up your surplus Soviet T-62 and crashed through the store walls and run the guy over?

I guess you've never heard of MODERATION have you. EVERYTHING in moderation.

I think you're asking the wrong poster that question. I'm still waiting on a good reason why 'open carry' is such a good idea when recent examples clearly show it isn't. As for owning all that other crap, it isn't practical nor would it do any good, except for drug gangs and the like. Who thinks they can afford to train with an M-60 given the cost per round of ammo? Just how much 'practice' are you going to get in a tank, assuming you could crew it with anybody competent? How many tanks will you be able to scrape together and maintain?

Like I said, some of these posters are out to lunch already.

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?

Gee, thank God for the tanks and mortars they used to stop those rapes and murders.

What you don't understand is that it isn't up to you to determine how someone carries their legal gun. In some states with concealed carry, if you accidentally show the gun, since you can't open carry, you can be charged with brandishing the gun....which is why you should have open and concealed carry...that way as you concealed carry you can't be charged if your shirt hikes up when you reach for the cheerios at the grocery store and some anti-gun extremist calls it in to the police as if you are a joe biden rioter burning the store down.....

And the dumb argument about tanks and mortars..............

Gee...the founders didn't want us to carry tanks and mortars...so that means you can't have your handgun or rifle too....

What you don't understand is it isn't up to you either. The 2nd A covered black powder weapons, and in an era where most of the population was rural, savages still prowled around raiding farms and torturing people for entertainment, and wild animals were still a menace. Your arguments are the ones that are dumb; you guys aren't ever going to be 'freedom fighters n stuff, no matter how many movies you watch about that nonsense.

 

[2aguy]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?

If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!

ABSOLUTELY! And they are useful against statist mother fr's too!

Will they do any good at picking off a terrorist enraged over the ButterFingers Shortage in the Candy aisle if you're over in Automotive? Or would a sidearm nobody knows you have be the more sensible choice? Wouldn't the store's ceiling kind of screw up using a mortar to take them out? Would you be willing to pay for damages if you ran out and fired up your surplus Soviet T-62 and crashed through the store walls and run the guy over?

I guess you've never heard of MODERATION have you. EVERYTHING in moderation.

I think you're asking the wrong poster that question. I'm still waiting on a good reason why 'open carry' is such a good idea when recent examples clearly show it isn't. As for owning all that other crap, it isn't practical nor would it do any good, except for drug gangs and the like. Who thinks they can afford to train with an M-60 given the cost per round of ammo? Just how much 'practice' are you going to get in a tank, assuming you could crew it with anybody competent? How many tanks will you be able to scrape together and maintain?

Like I said, some of these posters are out to lunch already.

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?

Gee, thank God for the tanks and mortars they used to stop those rapes and murders.

What you don't understand is that it isn't up to you to determine how someone carries their legal gun. In some states with concealed carry, if you accidentally show the gun, since you can't open carry, you can be charged with brandishing the gun....which is why you should have open and concealed carry...that way as you concealed carry you can't be charged if your shirt hikes up when you reach for the cheerios at the grocery store and some anti-gun extremist calls it in to the police as if you are a joe biden rioter burning the store down.....

And the dumb argument about tanks and mortars..............

Gee...the founders didn't want us to carry tanks and mortars...so that means you can't have your handgun or rifle too....

What you don't understand is it isn't up to you either. The 2nd A covered black powder weapons, and in an era where most of the population was rural, savages still prowled around raiding farms and torturing people for entertainment, and wild animals were still a menace. Your arguments are the ones that are dumb; you guys aren't ever going to be 'freedom fighters n stuff, no matter how many movies you watch about that nonsense.

If this wasn't the CDZ I would add spice to my comment...but since it is.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.

Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Of course they should

They are very effective at massacring small children, shooting up shopping malls and churches as well as killing small rodents

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?

If someone wants to buy a high tech sniper rifle to shoot little children, he has a Constitutional right to do so

God Bless our founding fathers!

ABSOLUTELY! And they are useful against statist mother fr's too!

Will they do any good at picking off a terrorist enraged over the ButterFingers Shortage in the Candy aisle if you're over in Automotive? Or would a sidearm nobody knows you have be the more sensible choice? Wouldn't the store's ceiling kind of screw up using a mortar to take them out? Would you be willing to pay for damages if you ran out and fired up your surplus Soviet T-62 and crashed through the store walls and run the guy over?

I guess you've never heard of MODERATION have you. EVERYTHING in moderation.

I think you're asking the wrong poster that question. I'm still waiting on a good reason why 'open carry' is such a good idea when recent examples clearly show it isn't. As for owning all that other crap, it isn't practical nor would it do any good, except for drug gangs and the like. Who thinks they can afford to train with an M-60 given the cost per round of ammo? Just how much 'practice' are you going to get in a tank, assuming you could crew it with anybody competent? How many tanks will you be able to scrape together and maintain?

Like I said, some of these posters are out to lunch already.

And yet, in a country of over 320 million people.....only 11 people last year used their guns illegally in mass public shootings. At the same time, each year, on average, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times to stop rape, robbery and murder.....saving lives....

You got anything else?

Gee, thank God for the tanks and mortars they used to stop those rapes and murders.

What you don't understand is that it isn't up to you to determine how someone carries their legal gun. In some states with concealed carry, if you accidentally show the gun, since you can't open carry, you can be charged with brandishing the gun....which is why you should have open and concealed carry...that way as you concealed carry you can't be charged if your shirt hikes up when you reach for the cheerios at the grocery store and some anti-gun extremist calls it in to the police as if you are a joe biden rioter burning the store down.....

And the dumb argument about tanks and mortars..............

Gee...the founders didn't want us to carry tanks and mortars...so that means you can't have your handgun or rifle too....

What you don't understand is it isn't up to you either. The 2nd A covered black powder weapons, and in an era where most of the population was rural, savages still prowled around raiding farms and torturing people for entertainment, and wild animals were still a menace. Your arguments are the ones that are dumb; you guys aren't ever going to be 'freedom fighters n stuff, no matter how many movies you watch about that nonsense.

To use your "logic" since there was only handwritten, manually set type printed and spoken communication when the First Amendment was written, those three would be the only free speech allowed. All electronic media and automatically set type papers and magazines would be exempt from free speech laws. Under your "logic" this board wouldn't exist and those of you critical of the government on it would be in jail.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yes. If any civil law enforcement or security agency can have them then they are for any law abiding citizen to purchase and own.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Devils_Advocate]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Many people do not realize a shotgun is considered a military and LEO style weapon and is used by both...

So many Americans already own a Military style weapon without knowing it...

 

[JimBowie1958]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?
And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Many people do not realize a shotgun is considered a military and LEO style weapon and is used by both...
So many Americans already own a Military style weapon without knowing it...

That is why I find the term 'Assault Rifle' so ironic.

No military would ever equip its soldiers with single-shot auto-loaders any more, but almost all of them issue shotguns.

The 'assault rifle' terminology is the most misleading pile of bullshit ever concocted.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?
And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Many people do not realize a shotgun is considered a military and LEO style weapon and is used by both...
So many Americans already own a Military style weapon without knowing it...

That is why I find the term 'Assault Rifle' so ironic.

No military would ever equip its soldiers with single-shot auto-loaders any more, but almost all of them issue shotguns.

The 'assault rifle' terminology is the most misleading pile of bullshit ever concocted.

I have a single shot Russian made shotgun that is used to scare wild animals off and my pump action shotgun Chinese made for home security.

My rounds range from slug to bean bag shells for various reasons why...

People should educate themselves about the damage a shotgun can do within a close range in tight areas because of it spread capability...

Shotguns have a lower accuracy rating for long range shots but near shots can be deadly as can be.

The only other firearm I will carry is a .38 snub nose and anyone with firearm knowledge knows why...

My firearms are specific and not toys for me and I have yet to use them on human life and hope I never will...

Also noting on the wordage of Military Style Rifle the fact is all firearms are or could be used by the military or LEO...

 

[2aguy]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Many people do not realize a shotgun is considered a military and LEO style weapon and is used by both...

So many Americans already own a Military style weapon without knowing it...

And that is the gun control bait and switch.....they tell uninformed Americans, "We only want to get rid of military style weapons...so give us the power to do it...." and then the uninformed Americans get the letter stating that their deer hunting rifle or pump action shotgun is included in the new ban on military weapons, and they have to sell it or turn it in..........

 

[Devils_Advocate]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Many people do not realize a shotgun is considered a military and LEO style weapon and is used by both...

So many Americans already own a Military style weapon without knowing it...

And that is the gun control bait and switch.....they tell uninformed Americans, "We only want to get rid of military style weapons...so give us the power to do it...." and then the uninformed Americans get the letter stating that their deer hunting rifle or pump action shotgun is included in the new ban on military weapons, and they have to sell it or turn it in..........

Technically all firearms could be construed as Military Style which will leave it open to take all firearms at will...

Like you did with your question the left will also play on words while knowing many will not notice the wording and then later realize the left meant all firearms are subjected to this rule...

The sad reality is most Americans are easily fooled...

 

[beautress]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Many people do not realize a shotgun is considered a military and LEO style weapon and is used by both...

So many Americans already own a Military style weapon without knowing it...

And that is the gun control bait and switch.....they tell uninformed Americans, "We only want to get rid of military style weapons...so give us the power to do it...." and then the uninformed Americans get the letter stating that their deer hunting rifle or pump action shotgun is included in the new ban on military weapons, and they have to sell it or turn it in..........

Technically all firearms could be construed as Military Style which will leave it open to take all firearms at will...

Like you did with your question the left will also play on words while knowing many will not notice the wording and then later realize the left meant all firearms are subjected to this rule...

The sad reality is most Americans are easily fooled...

Well, the second amendment is pretty specific when it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Many people do not realize a shotgun is considered a military and LEO style weapon and is used by both...

So many Americans already own a Military style weapon without knowing it...

And that is the gun control bait and switch.....they tell uninformed Americans, "We only want to get rid of military style weapons...so give us the power to do it...." and then the uninformed Americans get the letter stating that their deer hunting rifle or pump action shotgun is included in the new ban on military weapons, and they have to sell it or turn it in..........

Technically all firearms could be construed as Military Style which will leave it open to take all firearms at will...

Like you did with your question the left will also play on words while knowing many will not notice the wording and then later realize the left meant all firearms are subjected to this rule...

The sad reality is most Americans are easily fooled...

Well, the second amendment is pretty specific when it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does but the Democratic Party believe they can and will infringe on it...

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Not with your death rates from firearms - You are a disgrace to the international community and to humanity as a whole!

Gun-related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Yes. There's no good reason for a civilian to own a gun if he isn't a soldier or a cop.

I can think of a couple...

Your picture shows the danger that puts JoeB131 in....

 

[Uncensored2008]

If some people believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own "military style" rifles....what about actual military sniper rifles? How about military guns used to blow doors off their hinges? These are weapons used in actual war by the military.....should they be banned since they are actual military weapons vs. "military style," weapons?

And do you understand that under the Miller ruling....from the Supreme Court....actual military weapons are protected under the 2nd Amendment?

Not with your death rates from firearms - You are a disgrace to the international community and to humanity as a whole!

Gun-related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Most of those from "sniper rifles," sparky?