[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That's the whole point of the Bill Of Rights. You don't have to justify owning anything. The government has to justify taking it away from you. The British governor of Massachussetts didn't see any justification in common citizens owning cannons either, so he sent troops to confiscate them. That's what Lexington and Concorde were about.

The quote standing alone is a different thought altogether than my overall post. I said that I personally have yet to hear a reasonable argument for the owning of an assault rifle, considering the only practical application it has, the potential for so much damage. I also went on to say that this bill is absurd and the assault rifle is, through current regulations, adequately difficult to own already, thereby putting it still legal and available, though regulated. To summarize the point i was trying to get at, there may be no reason to have such a potentially dangerous weapon, but it is a non-issue considering how many hoops you have to go through to get it and therefore it is not a reasonable public safety threat and should not be banned. If any legislation is truly necessary, it should be background checks that include closer evaluation of any documented cases of mental instability, such as being on anti psychotic drugs, stays at mental institutions, diagnosis of mental disorders, ect.

Originally Posted by August

Psychiatric evaluation to exercise a constitutional right? Lovely.

You're Right, lets give back all the mentally unstable lunatics their right to own a firearm. I'm not saying that everyone should go to a shrink (god knows how that would turn out), i meant that the background checks for previous documented cases of mental instability should be evaluated more closely and thoroughly before giving a go-ahead for the purchase of firearms.