>>>>>>>>>Yeah 200+ years ago when people only had single shot muskets that took 2 minutes to load a single shot. Come on man - think dude!
>>>>>>>>It was all the enemy had then too.
>>>>>>>>Gun bans don't make anyone safer except criminals.
>>>>>>>The army had cannons not just muskets
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When I said "the enemy" I was referring to the majority of other criminal people you'd likely encounter on a daily basis who could've had weapons to use against your personal safety. But, you're right the military had bigger weapons than most people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>having a gun in your house doesn't make you safer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This one's in a business, but an over 60 granny fought off five criminals by herself. Even goes running after them:
>>>>>>http://video.foxnews.com/v/1767061655001/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>there was a report on that not too long ago and the odds of the gun saving
>>>>>>>you from a problem are substantially less than a problem happening as a
>>>>>>>result of the gun being in your house to begin with (i.e. - accidents etc).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There will always be accidents. People cut fingers off with kitchen knives every day. They stab themselves in the hands and face with forks. People even crash automobiles into stationary trees, curbs, parked cars, without being under the influence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Proper education on weapon safety and use will reduce those kinds of accidents, but you will never be able to get rid of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The 2nd Amendment was written and exists to keep would-be aggressors from being able to dominate the mass citizenry. It was a necessary component the framers recognized and even singled out the reasons why in its text "...being necessary to the security of a free State(nation)..." The reason it was created is obvious in every form. They feared for the U.S. from aggressors, both foreign and domestic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is as much a necessity today as it was back then, and has not changed in need since it was introduced.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok look this is all pretty simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>A) 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago and if you actually believe that the need for it has not changed since then your beyond delusional.
>>>>>B) Having a gun in your house does not make you safer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now you can dream up all the crazy things you want - but at the end of the day that's just the way it is.
>>>>
>>>>Why cheery pick? All 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights were written 200+ years ago.
>>>
>>>Riiight but some don't NEED to change with the times, some do. For example, Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. What is considered "cruel and unusual punishment' has evolved over the years and our society changes. Perhaps its time to examine the Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms - and expand what is considered "arms" in this context.
>>
>>The 2nd Amendment HAS changed with the times.
>>http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Second-Amendment-History.htm
>
>So maybe it's a good idea to continue doing so until things like these AK-47's are banned again? I just can't seem to come up with any rational reason why any private citizen needs to posses such a weapon.
>
>>>>Of course, socialism was dreamed up 200+ years ago so perhaps you ARE onto something. ;)

Full auto AK-47's are banded unless you have a permit to use full auto weapons. Semi-auto weapons come in many forms. There are military style rifles (pistol grip ) that shoot each time the trigger is pulled. The AR-15 is a good example and it shoots .233 ammo. These weapons accept large magazines that can shoot many time without reloading. Then there are sporting rifles that do not have the pistol grip that shoot .233 ammo and can accept large magazines. Then there are semi-auto pistols that can accept larger magazines and shoot each time the trigger is pulled. Then there are the double action pistols (revolvers) that shoot each time the trigger is pulled. I have personally emptied a 357 mag in 4 to 5 seconds.

Anyone with some experience can carry a belt load of 10 shot magazines and reload in about 10 seconds. Revolvers have speed loader clips that are not quite as fast as the semi-autos but still should be able to reload in about three seconds.

So, if military style rifles are banned and large magazines are banned then anyone can still use sporting rifles with large clips using the same size of ammo and shoot just as fast. Limit the size of the magazine and anyone can carry multiple magazines and the only difference is the two seconds it takes to load another mag. Same with pistols, carry multiple mags and the time to shoot 100 rounds is maybe 20 seconds longer. A revolver with 10 six shot speed loaders will do almost as much damage.

The the question is, what difference does it make to ban military style weapons when there are sooo many other options.

Last, the reason to own a military style weapon is because they are just plain fun to shoot. I have spent many hours target shooting and it is very enjoyable. So why should honest law abiding citizens be denied their toys.