Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
All the way through this you're just conflating guns made for mass aggression with guns in general.

We'll take it as read that defensive guns should be legal. Okay, fine, keep them. That's not a point of contention here.

What we're discussing is reasons for military guns. The only argument on the table for this at the moment is the issue of defence against the US military. But the same argument suggests that Americans should be allowed to own any kind of military hardware. I don't accept that non-firearm hardware can be ruled out as useless. Presumably the US army would use its own air force for various things, guerilla warfare or otherwise. Therefore, the populace having aircraft of their own would most certainly be useful in a conflict.
There is a limit to which the logic applies. I don't think civilians should be allowed to own just anything the military has. Necessity, potential for negative outcomes, and controllability have to be taken into account. I think guns made for mass aggression should be legal because they are necessary or at least notably advantageous for fighting groups of attackers (both government and civilian thugs) and they can't be successfully controlled in the U.S. I don't buy the argument that a single shot rifle is all anybody needs for self-defense. Sometimes a shoot out is necessary.