The first amendment rights of some people should similarly be limited to a sheet of paper and a crayon.

Which just goes to show you that good people can be ignorant of the truth about firearms. That bill did nothing that they said it would do. It banned things that were trivial; just as well, in my opinion.

Hinkley´s ´assault weapon´ was a .22 caliber Röhm RG-14 revolver. When we´re talking about firearms, this one , though potentially deadly, is about as small as you can get. Even Ronald Reagan was capable of decisions based on emotion if he thought of this as an assualt weapon.

The scary looking guns ban was not effective. THe exception is it might dry up the supply that Obambi and Holder use to run guns to drug lords in Mexico. So it might, just might, save some Mexican peasants lives. But it will not stop drug related deaths in this country. It will not stop domestic deaths in this country and it will not stop mass murderers from committing mass murder.

It´s strictly bad form to engage in pronoucements or speculation on the topic of what people "need."

OP: Why would anyone want or need a car with more than 100 hp? It´ll get you to the same destination, and it is less likely to be used or driven in a reckless manner than a 500hp muscle car, right? As citizens in a land of liberty, we allow people to own and use items in a lawful and responsible manner even if the item has no appeal to us, and may occasionally be used by others in a reckless and dangerous manner resulting in tragedy. I personally enjoy shooting the semi-auto tactical rifle (derisively referred to as the "assault rifle"). As long as I am responsible and lawful, why do you want to take it away from me? Incidentally, my "assault rifle" has not assaulted anyone to date, but I´m keeping a close eye on it. You can keep your muscle car as well. As a law-enforcement officer, I can assure you that passing a ban on these or any other type of weapon will NOT keep them away from criminals. It will only disarm people who pose no threat or danger to you, me, or anyone else. There are other, better ways to make us safer. They´re just not as politically sexy. Please don´t fall for the leftist hype.

One bright sunny day, as I lay over the edge of a hill listening to the impact of bullets hitting the trees surrounding me, I remember thinking that something like a high capacity AR style weapon would be more useful than the single shot hunting rifle clutched to my quivering self.

There are a few places you shouldn´t go while under gunned.

No self respecting gunman, military or terrorist, would EVER commence an "Assault" without a fully automatic weapon.

It says: BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR (roll tongue for full effect)

Not: Boom..boom...boom.

Why is this critical point always lost ?

OP perhaps you should read the 2d Amendment and the history behind it to answer your question.

When the assault weapon ban was lifted crime rates did not go up as predicted however in Australia when they ban personal weapons crime rates went up.

A liberal casual friend asked OP´s question when I brought out my then new AK. My answer was I don´t need it. I´m a free and I want it.

Noted the snide remark about Reagan´s health while still in office. My son has the family guns and I was in NRA when guns were in my possession tho I don´t shoot. Thought we settled this in Supreme Court.

Goes to show that nobody, not even Reagan, is perfect.

He was weak on the gun issue, and the guns laws which prohibit responsible citizens from purchasing modern fully-automatic weapons were passed on his watch.

The OP´s mindset is certainly ´progressive´. Using government to determine and authorize what people "need". That´s not the definition of a free society.

So, why did the Democrats let the bill expire?
What, it would have been politically difficult?
So, they decided to protect their job as a politician instead of "doing the right thing"?

Then, they try to get cute by using the Fast and Furious scheme as means to illustrate the need for gun control only to bury the scandal because it´s killed 300+ Mexican citizens in Mexico, so isn´t as useful as they´d hoped.
Now, they want to use Newtown tragedy.

...also, the Second Amendment wasn´t placed in the Constitution to protect hunting.

The OP didn´t say should have or could have, she asked "want" or "need". A constitutional right to own and bear arms wasn´t being questioned.

Now we´re parsing what the meaning of "is" is.

As a rule, when the gun-banners come around, they ask, "Why do you need that?", and "Why would you want that?"

No, 17, it was implied, just like a good progressive. Let me explain something, no one, especially the government, will EVER determine what I "want or need", from the car I drive, the food in my house, or the weapons I choose to buy (with MY hard earned money). Get it?

Sheesh! Some of these automatically jerking knees should be brought under control. I think we all got along just fine with our various firearms in the years before these horrendous weapons were developed. I know I have the right to own one, but thank you, no.

Because OP, they are a hoot to take to the range and shoot. There are 8 of us gals that meet twice a month and turn alot of ammo into noise then we have dinner. Do I need it, no, did my hubby buy me two because I wanted them, damn straight he did.

How many pairs of shoes, etc, fill in the blank do you need?

I think OP´s question is whats so baffling. Free people intuitively understand about rights. They rarely feel the need to articulate why they "need" a particular weapon. Other free people rarely ask because the answer is understood by all. Its like asking someone why they need a newspaper or a water heater. We immediately become suspicious of anyone who suggests we must demonstrate a need.

#20 the automatic weapon has been around a long time, but the first practical automatic was the maxim machine gun, invented in 1885. War with Spain, WW1 & 2, for starters shows we didn´t get along all that well since then. And before then, there was plenty of crime, murder, assault, etc. So I fail to see what period you are talking about where we all got along fine.
As for those who mentioned Fast and Furious, that pales alongside the gun-running by Obama through Libya to Syrian "rebels", where at least 40,000 have died.
As for needing such a weapon, #21 answered it with the question about how many shoes.

Arguing with seminar posters sent here by some Soros group as astroturf support for gun control is a waste of time.

Reagan did back the Clinton Ban because he had promised Jim Brady he would back him no matter what he wanted to do....it´s common knowledge.

Yes, the LPs, if they truly were interested in learning, have had three decades to learn from the peer-reviewed studies and constitutional research and public discussions. That the apparently disingenuous though ignorant questions keep turning up shows they aren´t serious about learning anything, because they don´t like the cold hard facts. They´re just stirring the pot until they get their way - which is what LPs (collectivists/communists/socialists/fascists/etc.)do. It´s just another front in their war on the Republic.

The reliable lever action rifle with modern cartidges only existed for 12 years (1873-1885) before machine guns were available. The imaginary time when "those bad guns" didn´t exist is essentially fictional. Muzzle loaders to machine guns was about 25 yrs.

ANYONE could buy ANY machine gun from 1885 to 1934, and many thousands did. After that law, gun crime stopped, right? Actually, it didn´t change at all.

The modern sporting rifles LOOK LIKE the miliary weapons, just like you neighbor might have a Indy Pace Car Corvette, not really the same, JUST STYLING. Oh yeah, they were banned for a decade and mass shootings went UP that decade.

On top of this side show of intentional confusion of semi auto (one shot per trigger pull, same as a revolver) and machine guns, the fundamental point is that the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or protection in the mall parking lot, those are just fringe benefits. The 2nd Amendment is about having the civilian population armed well enough to deter a despot from tyranny. This means military type of weapons, and frankly we do NOT have access to them now, only lower capability rifles. Read what the people that wrote the Consitution left by way of explanation of their intent. It is called the Federalist Papers, and for the historically ignorant, but with an open mind, it should be helpful.

Of course, no government could EVER enslave the people and maybe send them to gulags by the tens of thousands or intentionally starve them to death by the millions after removing all the food from a region, right? Study the Soviet examples of what happens to unarmed peasants some times.

I could never happen here, right?

Yes - as long as the populace is armed.

O.P. might care to reflet on the original intent of the Second, and how it has become more meaningful than ever before...

I´m sorry, but I don´t believe that President Reagan would ever support a ban on guns or support that C word on any issue. I refuse to believe this article.
President Reagan is the reason that my family owns assault weapons, hand guns, rifles and attack weapons. We absolutely embrace his doctrine of carrying a big stick to deter enemies.
We are unapologetic about arming ourselves 24/7!

Believing in liberty means no demanding that others justify their choices. If someone wants 20 handguns, a car with 500 horsepower, or a 10,000 square foot house, it doesn´t matter if I think they have a good reason for it or need it or even if they they think they have a good reason for it. It´s just not my business, nor should it be the government´s business. "You don´t need it," and, "I can´t understand it," are not compelling reasons to restrict someone else´s lierty.

In fact, the question that should be asked of every bit of legislation proposed in response to the recent massacre should be, "Would it have stopped the massacre?" If the answer is no, then the next question should be, "Why are you proposing this restriction?"

As for Ronald Reagan, I think he was a great President, but he made mistakes, including some big ones. For example, he signed California´s pre-Roe abortion legalization legislation.

Before 1986, a regular citizen could buy a fully automatic gun (machine gun) for the cost of the gun plus $200 tax, generally less than $1000 total. Then the law changed. Now, some of those guns sell for upward of $50k. Maybe, just maybe, people are buying them as investments. Why do people buy baseball cards, comic books, and beanie babies. Certainly those are less useful or practical things to collect than a gun.

OP, you imply that some citizens should not be ´allowed´ certain weapons which make you and others uncomfortable because they are somehow deadlier than other guns you might be more familiar with. If guns are inevitably going to be misused, ban all of them. Understanding that more innocent people will die as a result of being disarmed. Otherwise enforce the 20,000 laws involving waiting periods, fingerprinting, complete background checks, judges approval, sheriffs approval, signs, fines, and prohibitions. At the end of that you will still find ARMED criminals. Why don´t you do something about them, like supporting Project Exile which the NRA has been pleading for decades to have implemented in cities? Instead the champions of gun banning, like Bloomberg, Rendell, etc. plea bargain criminals back to your street.

AKs and ARs are soft shooting accurate, effective rifles. In the case of the AK, it is simple, reliable and cheap. People do use them for hunting and others stand on top of their stores during riots to protect their life savings. I´m not interested in hunting. I´m interested in freedom. What I use to defend my home or person is really none of your business. It has no affect on you or anyone else who does not attack me. Compare VT gun laws vs CT or NY laws and the results of all that.