Federal Assault Weapons Ban Options

[*Kathleen*]

Before anyone jumps down my throat about repeated topics, I realize that there's a thread on guns already; however, it didn't really discuss the FAWB (hehe.. fawb ). So the question I pose to you is: Should the government renew the ban? Thoughts?

[*RubeTheCube*]

I took a look at the wikipedia article about the FAWB, but based on the limited info I have on it and the various circumstances in which its application could be overly restrictive or allow "bad" weapons to slip through, I cannot say with complete confidence whether or not it should be renewed.
I'll note: while I do think the 2nd amendment should be respected for the security of our nation, I believe that it definitely should have a certain level of restrictions attached.

so, all military grade arms, cannons, tanks, and aircraft included should be protected under the 2nd ammendment.

I'm going to have to disagree here, even though your intent is not to say these should be available.
Obviously those who were involved in the 2nd amendment's drafting process could not have predicted things like heavy tanks and supersonic bombers, let alone more extreme "arms" such as EMPs and thermonuclear warheads.
I know these are extreme examples and my post may seem a bit off topic mentioning them, but I just feel that the 2nd amendment is too outdated to be the only thing one would go by in determining if a weapon with a given set of characteristics should be legal or not.

I know that it it is very difficult to make blanket call on what exactly makes a given semi-automatic weapon an "Assault Weapon," so if a piece of federal legislation is to be active, it must be very carefully crafted.

All being said, I lean towards "no" because it seems to be a step too far against the 2nd amendment, but that is just my impression.