I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand you have the 2nd amendment, which is the "right to bear arms". Ok what exactly is that? At the time it was written, they referred to pistols and rifles....not sure many citizens owned a cannon. So basically they were saying pistols and rifles.
Actually, those who owned shipping companies, owned cannon, too. It was then, as now, a question of what a person could afford and their perceived need. Not one so much of government intervention.
Ok...here we are in 2016 with all kinds of weapons available on the open market. What should be legal and what should be illegal? Can I own a hellfire missile?...doubtful. So what exactly can we own and how is this determined.
Perhaps. It would be considered a destructive device under the NFA. The question is one of cost, a platform to fire it from, and getting the purchase approved by the Federal Government. I'm not sure how much scrutiny that would bring you under, but that would likely be considerable. And it is unlikely that the purchase would be approved, as the US doesn't like state of the art weapons just floating around for reverse engineering. But that's a national security question.
I've fired an "assault rifle" and it was fun to shoot, but not practical for hunting, unless you want to slaughter hogs, which may not be such a bad idea. Personally I don't own one and would likely never buy one, just because it's not practical. If you are looking to protect yourself from your overreaching government I could see owning one.
When you say "assault rifle", are you referring to a select fire weapon which allows burst or fully automatic fire, or are you referring to a firearm which looks like one of those which fires semi-automatic (one pull of the trigger fires one round, after which the firearm loads using recoil energy or gas power from the previous cartridge)? If the latter, these firearms have been around a lot longer than either the Stoner variants (including the M-16, M-4, and the AR-15), and include such venerable veterans of conflict as the M1 Garand, the M1 Carbine, and a host of other rifles. Some of these do not outwardly resemble the AR-15 by any stretch of the imagination, but would be banned along with any other semi-automatic firearm.
Consider that these are used for hunting. They are used for self-defense, and they are used for target shooting.
If someone breaks into my house at night....the last thing I'd be looking for is my "assault rifle", it would be my loaded handgun. They make fun toys.....but....... Like I say, I have mixed emotions about them......
If you are defending your home, the firearm closest at hand, and hopefully the one which you are most comfortable and proficient with, is the ideal selection. Other arms may be more effective, but it is easier to get ammunition for that handgun with limited drywall penetration which is very effective against a perpetrator. Handguns are easier to maneuver in tight spaces, so much depends on the layout of your home. That doesn't make the AR-15 a bad choice for home defense, only for you and your home.
As for me, nope. No mixed emotions at all. Considering fewer than ten people have been killed with legally owned machine guns since the NFA of 1934, I'd say claw hammers are far more dangerous.
The semi-automatic rifle is fine for hunting, so long as you don't decide to empty the magazine at some critter. I asked the Game and Fish folks in ND what the magazine limit was if you, for instance, take an AK-47 deer hunting a few years back. They said you could have the full 30 in the mag, but if you needed more than the first two, shame on you. I agree.
So what is the difference between taking that M1A deer hunting and the AK? Well, the M1A is generally recognized as more accurate, more precise, but despite not being a 'black gun' would be surely included in another AWB. The Mini 14 similarly, is a decent varmint rifle, and the Ranch model can be used hunting deer, coyotes, or other similarly sized critters. No one decries the semi-auto shotgun (with magazine limitations to comply with Federal waterfowl hunting law) in the duck blind, why decry a rifle which can be used for everything from hunting to home defense to target shooting?
The problem isn't the tool, it is the intent of the person who wields it. The same or even more evil results could have been obtained with a box full of wine bottles, a few gallons of gasoline and some rags, down in Florida. It was the intent of the people who did the shooting to kill people they regarded as Infidels. Period. Make them use a different tool, and they will. They have demonstrated creativity in mass murder worldwide.
It isn't about the firearm, it is about the person behind it. Some of the greatest acts of heroism have been performed with firearms, and some despicable acts, too. There are a host of laws on the books that attempt to ensure that firearms don't fall into the wrong hands, and even those are not enough to stop those bent of mayhem and murder from accomplishing that task. They will find a way.
Lest we forget, the first documented homicide was committed with a rock. As a geologist, I can safely say rocks aren't going away any time soon. More laws aren't the answer--after all, it was the no gun zone laws which made that group even more vulnerable to attack.
