|
Ok, quick preface: I am Canadian so really have no business jumping in, but I also have a big dang mouth and can't help it!
Saying there is no point in arguing with someone asking that question doesn't help gun supporters cause in the least. You should be salivating at the opportunity to convert someone like a Jehovah's Witness hearing someone say "I'd like to learn more about saving my immortal soul." The 2nd amendment DOES protect the right to bear arms, with the purpose of keeping the gov't accountable for there actions, in extreme cases. In reality, the likelihood of the general population being able to do this without completely destroying everything else they hold dear (not to mention the support of your military) is bloody unlikely.
The practical difference between a semi and a repeater isn't that large under most circumstances. There are times when a semi is more useful (see self defense) and times when it is more damaging (see Dec. 6, 1989 @ L'Ecole Polytechnique Massacre). It is a matter of degree and situational appropriateness. There in lies the crux to me. There is a saying 'Those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither'. True, to a point. You shouldn't be able to run amok in wal-mart with a flame thrower, but that is impinging on the safety and freedom of others. Owning (and safely and thoughtfully using) semi automatic rifles does not impinge on the freedom or safety of others any more than any other firearm. Using ANY firearm thoughtlessly or with malice is dangerous, a semi auto only slightly more so than a repeater. Trading the freedom to use one responsibly for the small increase in public safety is a dangerous precedent.
|