Just when I was thinking of selling my T-34

[kandrathe]

Anyhow, good day. Time to get back to work !

I pretty much agree, but for nuances. I think it is reasonable for a person (police or civilian) to be armed sufficient to defend themselves from the "normal" criminal. So, it's not whimsy, or even about controlled lethality (although I agree on that part too).

Currently, the worst case scenario (I'm thinking more like a rancher shootout with the Juarez cartel here) we citizen would normally face would be on the level of an AK47 or M16 variants, with the standard 30 round magazine. The practical rate of fire for them is 100-150 rpm in burst, however... Army ammo guidelines (10 Kg) would suggest the maximum rounds carried for AK to be about 300, and for M16 about 900 -- but, the real sustained firepower limitation is barrel heating which limits the effective rate of fire to about 12-15 rpm (similar to a bolt action). If you had to defend yourself in this type of scenario, you'd want enough "firepower" to hold out until the authorities arrived to take over which could be 30 minutes or more depending on how far away they might be.

But, I think it should mostly be up to the lawful citizen to make up their own mind on how they choose to defend themselves without also becoming a threat (e.g. rockets, mortars, tanks, nukes). Philosophically, I'm somewhat ambivalent about automatic weapons, or mortars, or tanks. They really are more "Army" weapons, than "Militia" weapons. I think a civilian should be able to get a limited use permit to own one if they can document their need for one. An example, would be a company that is seeking to build military weapons to sell to our, or other nations military.