Should it be legal for civilians to own fully automatic weapons?

Owning/possessing anything violates the rights of no one. By the same token, there are many objects that can be used to violate the rights of others.

Shall we outlaw everything that can be used to violate rights? Or shall we validate individual freedom by assuming that rational individuals will use these tools wisely and responsibly, and react only to those who don't?

Of course, it *is* legal for civilians to own automatic weapons. It's just currently illegal to manufacture them. Assuming for a moment that a line must be drawn somewhere with regards to weaponry (tanks, bombers, nuclear weapons in individual civilian hands?) one must draw the line based on the historical justification for civilian arms, that is, 1) arms required for the protection of the individual and his family and 2) militia arms. Or in modern terms, any arms commonly used by individual infantrymen in the course of their service can be possessed by individuals by right. This would include automatic weapons like the M-16/M-4 or Thompson, or equivalent. Larger crew-served weapons might be possessed privately, but only in the context of "a well-regulated militia" under the command and control of the authorities.

On Penn & Teller's new tv show ("Penn & Teller Tell a Lie") they did a fairly simple but effective demonstration that when faced by multiple targets at a moderate distance (they portrayed it as a zombie overrun) the semi-automatic rifle is more effective than a fully automatic rifle. In the test they used a Thomspon .45 sub machine gun versus an AR-15 set to single. Even in the hands of a trained professional, the single fire weapon was much, much more fire effective even in a very short time frame (10 seconds).

This doesn't say anything about the morality (or immorality) of such laws, but it raises a very interesting point that the main argument for those who advocate regulating fully automatic weapons is most likely false.

Are there some things which possession entails inherent potential risks that are so great that the possessor should be required to demonstrate proper safe handling or insurance against realization of those risks? I don't think automatic weapons falls into this category as a neighbor is just as (un)likely to be harmed via negligent handling of an automatic weapon as a semi-automatic and only slightly greater risk from a single shot weapon.

However, the principle(s) covered must also address things which have a much greater risk of harm through negligent handling, e.g., biologic, chemical and nuclear weapons (even unstable explosive compounds like nitro glycerin). Possession of any of these weapons does not violate anyone's rights. However, improper handling of them could very easily violate the rights of many people. Should a private citizen be required to demonstrate proper storage & handling facilities and bonded insurance in order to possess them? Should a private citizen be barred from possessing them? If so, under what principle?

These principles extend beyond possessions related to self defense. Most directly, these same principles extend to pollution and various forms of capital equipment.