My Case Against Assault Weapons
(My original post of this thread was on the DU General Discussion and I was surprised by the venomous reaction of pro gun enthusiasts on what is supposed to be a Democratic site. I felt like I was fighting 20 to 1 odds, but I did my best. 
Well guess they let anyone post there. I have made some minor updates based on the "feedback" I received there. For one thing the weapon I described was probably an M-16 with a AR-15 stamp on it. That is the military version of the AR-15 which has automatic capabilities. I will put the changes in parenthesis.)
One of my responsibilities when I was Air Force Aircraft Maintenance Officer in the Strategic Air Command (SAC) was be ready to deploy to a forward operating base in the event of a nuclear war to turn around B-52 bombers when they returned from their bombing missions over the USSR. To be ready to perform that duty, my men and I had to stay proficient on our personal weapons. Officers were assigned a 0.38 caliper pistol called the Colt Combat Masterpiece, but I manage to also get certified on the AR-15 (the semiautomatic version of the M16 assault rifle).
I originally thought that an AR-15 would make a good deer rifle, it is short, light and relative accurate over long distances. I changed my mind when I saw a demonstration of the weapon's firepower one day. The target on this occasion was a 55 gallon steel drum filled with water which was use to demonstrate the stopping power the AR-15. When the drum was hit from fifty yards, the bullet made a small hole at the entry point, but on exit it made a hole in the back of the steel drum much bigger than the size of my fist. The original ammunition of the AR-15 had a 5.56mm (0.223 caliber -slightly larger than a 22) bullet propelled by a massive amount of gun powder. It makes a small hole on entry, but the projectile is unstable so it tumbles when it enters flesh and is designed to make a massive exit wound.
Thus I determined that the AR-15 was totally useless as a hunting rifle because it would destroy much of the meat of a targeted animal. It was designed for one thing, killing people. With magazines capable of storing 60 and even 100 rounds, the AR-15 is capable of killing people as quickly the shooter can pull the trigger and making sure when a person is hit just about anywhere on his body, he will go down and he will not get back up. Can you imagine the damage this weapon did to the little children killed in the Sandy Hook massacre?
I shudder every time I am reminded that military assault weapons such as the AR-15 can be bought by just about anyone in our country and can thus easily fall in the hands of a homicidal maniacs or home grown terrorists whose objectives are to kill the maximum number of people before they are themselves shot.
Whenever there efforts to ban assault weapons, there is always talk about 2nd Amendments rights. However, there are few defenders of the 2nd Amendment who would defend the right of ordinary Americans to own fully functional M1A tanks, or bazookas, or anti-aircraft rockets. And no sane person would defend the right a civilian to possess a tactical nuclear weapon.
So nearly everyone concedes that even 2nd Amendments rights have their limits. The only thing that is at issue here is where do you draw the line between which weapons are allowed and which not allowed.
In my humble opinion that line should be drawn to ban assault weapons from our streets. They are not practical for hunting and offer no more protection than a standard hand gun, rifle or shotgun. Some would argue that assault weapons allow relatively unskilled shooters to defend their homes and/or lives more effectively because of their multiple shot capability. Well, first of all I don't want unskilled people handling any kind of firearms and if someone wants a ideal defensive weapon they need to buy a shotgun. It is difficult to miss with shotgun at relatively close range.
(Now some owners of assault weapons say they can and are used for hunting, and based on their descriptions of their activities I don't doubt that this is true. Apparently modifications to modern AR-15 do allow for this capability. However, what they won't mention is that there are many other rifles which are manufactured for specifically for hunting which are as good as or usually better than the assault weapons they are using. In addition, most of these rifles are equipped only with five round clips (larger clips are illegal for hunting in many states). Assault rifles which an be use with readily available magazines which hold as many as 100 rounds) could be banned without affecting the ability to hunt.)
(In addition, if it proves politically impossible to band assault weapons, we should at least ban high capacity magazine with magazines and clips limited to only 10 or 11 rounds - the number of rounds carried by many handguns. Proposed laws call for a period or maybe 6 months where the government would buy back all high capacity magazines from gun owners. After that period of time it would be a crime punishable by several years in jail to possess such magazines.)
So assault weapons with high capacity magazines have only one practical purpose, killing multiple people in a very short period of time. Why in the world would we want just about anyone in the general public to have access to such powerful weapons. If you want to discuss your 2nd Amendment rights, we can also make that discussion about your right own an 68 ton M1A tank equipped a 120mm tank gun, a 50 caliber machine gun and two and second 7.62 mm machine guns. You see the 2nd Amendment isn't about providing access to any and all weapons, it's about where we draw the line.
If you find the time, please check out my blog.
= new reply since forum marked as read
yeah, "almost" 
It's like a long running joke. Gunthusiasts try and post here as long as they can before outing themselves.
