I'd come at it from a different angle:

I wouldn't limit the type of firearm, but I would limit the ammunition. You don't have to worry about a guy with a fully automatic weapon when he only has 100 rounds. That wouldn't last 3 seconds.

Here's an off-the-cuff idea: You can buy as much ammo as you want when you're at the range to practice with. The range owners have to give you credit for any unspent shells when you leave. So you can go and practice all day so long as you can afford it. By the way, it benefits everyone to have those who exercise their second amendment rights to be as skilled as possible (less gun accidents).

But you can limit the number of boxes of ammo people buy for use outside the range. More during hunting season, less in the off season. The legitimate home defense people won't care as long as the ammo will still work (they do have a shelf life), because in the overwhelming majority of the time, the ammunition they have purchased has gone unused.

Again, it's only the nightmare inducing "gun nut" who needs several thousand rounds of ammunition on a continuous feed for a fully automatic machine gun. Couldn't carry it very far -- too heavy -- it would have to be on his roof or something.

gun ownership has risen over the last few years, especially since the terrorist attacks...yet crime has gone down, not up. food for thought. besides, the bad guys aren't as keen to forcibly enter a home if they are more concerned that harry homeowner has a means of defense.

maybe I should have dropped the semi - as you said there are different types of guns out there that would fall under the semi part. (though I still dont believe they are necessary.. I do understand the "collectors item" part)

I dont understand why anyone would want a gun that could kill hundreds in minutes. Or guns that are used for wars. Nobody needs an ak 47 or an automatic rifle.

Even semi-automatic handguns, like the ones used by the Virginia Tech killer (so he could kill lots in a short amount of time) are not necessary for people to own. the only real point of them are violence.

they do much more harm than good.. and yes I know people kill people, not guns... but a dangerous person with an ak 47 is much more harmful to us citizens..

hollow point bullets should be banned. I'd feel more comfortable if the only assault rifles in this country were located on military bases.

regular joe's should not be able to own assault / (semi) automatic rifles. It just doesnt make sense.

yes we should...crime is lower when you have the ability to defend your house.. as for handguns..eh the whole ban thing isnt working out in chi very well..10 shootings a week or so.

why do you need an AK 47 to protect your house? who would need that except people caught up in some serious crimes?

I think handguns and shotguns are plenty of protection. As is mase, a taser and a big dog!

Ban all guns. Moar knifing.

I've always been somewhat conflicted by gun regulations. As a lifelong sportsman/hunter, semi-auto shotguns and rifles are nothing unusual for me. Most firearms are in fact semi-auto, and I've hunted with them since I was 8 years old. I have a dozen guns now, but I've never bought one with the idea of home protection (I don't own any handguns).

As a gun owner, however, I don't see any use or even any appeal for fully automatic or "assault" rifles. The nuts argue that if you let them take those away, they'll come after my hunting rifles next. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't buy that argument.

Limits on ammo don't work for me either. We do a lot of trap/skeet/target shooting on the farm as opposed to a controlled range. I'm not talking about thousands of assault rounds, but it's nothing to go through a couple of cases of shotgun shells through the course of a year that includes recreational and hunting outings.

I do buy the argument about the slippery slope, though I probably would never have interest in an "assault" weapon myself.

Legislators always try to push the envelope to justify their existence, so once those weapons are banned someone will try to ban the most powerful or efficient of the remaining weapons, and so on down the line until forced disarmament of the population is on the books.

Then only the criminals will have the guns.

It doesn't even need to go that far. If the anti-gun people allow us to have 1789-style muskets, in keeping with when the second amendment was first drafted, the police, and military and any criminal would be superiorly armed. As you're packing your powder and ball shot, you'd be getting perforated like swiss cheese.

I put the quotes around "assault" above because the distinction has always been subjective outside of military circles. Any weapon used in an assault can be called an assault weapon, much like any man with a gun is, on the TV news, referred to as a "gunman".

I knew many people, back in LA, that easily got guns off the street.

The ease of getting untraceable guns makes the whole argument of gun control pretty frickin stupid.

true