If by replica do you mean how toy guns sometimes get painted and used in robberies or like a plastic/ wooden copy of a real gun? Or those ones that are designed to fire only blanks?
Technically speaking, the language in our laws... has actually been updated since I last checked. The "replica" language appears to have been removed entirely, and "firearm" was redefined to eliminate the muzzle-velocity bullshit (it is now, basically, anything with a barrel that can fire a projectile capable of killing or causing serious bodily harm). So... yeah. The remaining restrictions... would negotiate the finer points, but the broad strokes look good to me. (On an amusing note, while looking for the "replica" language, I noticed that we're actually easier on people with a criminal record than the US is - up here, it's only a five-year ban for violent criminals, unless there's an established history of violent behaviour.)
No. The US Constitution lists the rights that the government canNOT take away from the population. These are rights that are supposed to be untouchable by government.
So felons can't be denied voting rights or guns, then? And there's no procedure for amending the Constitution? Or are you making bold, sweeping, unsupportable claims?
So? If there are no guns, other ways would be used. Just because a very TINY number of people use guns to murder others (or themselves) is no reason to restrict or remove gun ownership from -everyone-.
The statement I bolded kinda contradicts the experience of, say, Australia. When facts and statements collide, guess which loses?
Many hunters, especially the older ones are good, aka sniper materiel here, so they would be good/decent at ambushes. It would not take much for a few patrols to be taken out and better military hardware acquired. You seem to be thinking that the entire, or most of the US military would be going along with oppressing the US citizens. Why? What makes you think that the majority of US military personnel would go along with such orders? In all likelihood, there would be a hell of a lot of soldiers who would refuse to do that. The military would likely split and the government trying to oppress the people would find itself under fire from its own military.
You're asserting that a civilian hunter with a civilian hunting rifle is going to be superior to a military sniper with a military weapon?
Again, you're missing the point: If the military defects, untrained bands of armed civilians are not necessary. If the military does not defect, civilians have literally zero ways of dealing with large swathes of military capability. In neither
scenario do armed civilians change the outcome appreciably.
Mostly through illegal ways. I highly doubt they are bought legally. Modern military ordinance on the black market is definitely illegal.
Actually, they are bought legally. And then stolen from legal owners.
Hardly. It's less circular than your argument of; 'a small number of people use guns to murder others, so we should restrict/remove guns from everyone'. Why blame everyone for the actions of a tiny minority of people?
Actually, my argument is "Going from relatively open to rather strict policy on guns has, in the past, reduced the number of dead people as a direct result. Dead people are more important than any benefit anybody has so far proposed of current US gun policy. Ergo, guns should be more tightly regulated." I'm not concerned with who or how many the problem actors are. I'm concerned with how many victims
there are, and how that pile of dead bodies weighs up against the benefits of ridiculously open gun policies.