Okay, so let’s agree with these guys.  Why can’t I own a machine gun?  Why are those illegal?  After all, if the Second Amendment is as absolute as these folks above and others believe, shouldn’t I be able to keep a machine gun at home?  Talk about protection.

If someone breaks into my home and I have my Tommy gun at the bedside, I don’t need to be a sharpshooter to nail him — I’ll just send a spray of bullets in the general direction and get the intruder.

But I can, I can own a machine gun (read here)!  As long as it was in circulation prior to 1986, when the private ownership of new machine guns was outlawed, in a bill signed into law by . . . President Reagan.  And I meet the requirement.  And I live in a state that doesn’t prohibit it (Rats!  Arizona prohibits the private ownership of machine guns).

So I hope Rep. Gosar at the federal level and Sen. Shooter at the state level introduce bills to relax restrictions on machine guns.

After all, those weapons are just more efficient in volume of bullets fired than what currently is legal.  And if owning guns is a “God-given right,” then I assume the God-fearing Gosar and Shooter would do nothing to inhibit my right to own a Tommy gun.

Or are those weapons too efficient, too deadly, even for Gosar, Shooter, et.al.?  And if so, why isn’t a semi-automatic weapon with a 900-round barrel magazine like the one the Aurora shooter used?

I’d like to hear their answers.