= new reply since forum marked as read
After all, by the pro-NRA logic, if people really want them they are just absolutely going to get them no matter what laws are on the books! And there might be actual good uses a "law abiding Tactical Nuclear Weapon owner" might put his minature Hiroshima-style weapon too! What if finds himself in the middle of a Zombie Swarm? Are you against a law-abiding citizens right to defend himself with an 155mm artillery piece or a bazooka Nuke? Then you are anti-freedum and a hater of the Bill of Rights!!!!!111
It's 100% silly, but the logic above is precisely the "logic" our "pro gun progressives" use to justify military-style assault weapons capable of firing thousands of rounds a minute in civilian hands. They simply don't care how many children have to die in Sandy Hook-style massacres; they want them their toys and to hell with the rest of the country!
Thankfully, the vast majority of Americans are now beginning to turn against their deadly agenda, and stronger gun laws are coming nationwide. 
for historical reasons. The credits said it was originally built to take on German Tiger tanks, and could penetrate 5 inches of armor at 1,000 yards. I wonder if it actually racked up any Tiger "kills" during actual combat? Would be interesting to know.
It sure looked effective at blowing shit up. 
is. I recommend you enroll in a local community college, and take a Logic & Critical thinking course, and after that then come back to us and post about logical fallacies you think you've spotted on DU after actually learning what a "logical fallacy" consists of/looks like. It's less embarrassing that way. Pro-tip.
Good luck! 
Edit: typo.
As I recall, the polls in 1994 showed above 75% support, and it bombed...and as I mentioned, ownership is probably triple or quadruple now what it was then, and the proposed bans go much, much further than then.
One problem, then and now, was that many supporters weren't aware of the scope of the legislation ("do you support banning rapid-fire military weapons that have no legitimate sporting purpose" is quite a different thing than "do you support banning the most popular civilian target rifle in the United States" or "do you support making it a Federal felony to possess an ordinary 15-round pistol magazine"
. Once the 1994 law was passed, a lot of supporters found that their own ox had been gored. There are strong parallels to the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, IMO.
The other thing is that people you are threatening with 10- to 25-year felonies are going to be much more involved than somebody who thinks that some abstract ban on items they don't fully understand might possibly do some good. As the saying goes, it's like ham and eggs; if you're a chicken, you're concerned, but if you're a pig, you're involved.
Disclaimer, I'm in the former category (competitive shooter, CHL holder, nonhunter).
Banning this ...
... is draconian.
Bye!
not worth the effort of communication.
So again I say, bye!
Huh? run that underlined stuff by me again pls, slower.
Sorry for the jargon. STANAG magazines = magazines that comply with NATO STANAG 4179, a set of standard dimensions for the interface between a magazine and the receiver of a firearm. A standard magwell allows all kinds of different small arms to use the same magazines. Warsaw Pact (q.v.) magazine dimensions in various calibers were similarly standardized, and likewise fit a whole boatload of military and civilian guns.
There were hundreds of millions of them warehoused all over the world, and the 1994 AWB allowed them to be freely imported with no restrictions. Hence after the initial panic wore off, standardized AR and AK magazines ended up cheaper and more abundant 1994-2004 than pre-'94, as I recall. Before the declining dollar under Bush II made imports more expensive, I was buying AK magazines for $9.99/ea for 30's, and $5.99/ea for the 20's that I preferred, in 2003. My 2002 AK came with a 40-round RPK magazine which was a bit of a collectible even then, even more so now. I wasn't into FAL's or the other .308's, but I understand that FAL and CETME magazines were like $2.99/ea for 20-rounders at the same time.
True; ordinary civilians wanting to pretend they're as well armed as soldiers fighting wars & stuff, while never having to actually serve in a war, or join the army navy or marines, or join a militia, or, real combat type stuff. They just want to pretend they're a really 'well armed militia', ready for anything.
If that's why you think gun owners own 15-30 round magazines, or prefer aluminum-and-zytel centerfire .22's to walnut-and-steel .30's, then no wonder you take the position you do.
I suppose all those people who own bolt-action military-style Mauser derivatives like the Winchester Model 70 see themselves as doughboys storming the trenches, or white-feathers sniping the rice paddies? And those who shoot lever-action Henry derivatives see themselves as Civil War cavalry? Please.
I used to shoot a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle; I now shoot a Rock River carbine in a configuration that has never been used by any military on this planet (16" barrel, midlength flattop upper, Wilson match barrel, no automatic capability). The difference between the Ruger and the Rock River is accuracy, ergonomics, and looks. Though I'm sure you consider the Ruger an "assault weapon" also...
