Certainly, that is a fair question. But it is altogether a completely different question from the original one that inspired this thread.

Does our society have a compelling reason to restrict the ownership of automobiles that exceed a particular speed? Possibly. Does our society have a compelling reason to restrict the type of speech that might damage someone's reputation or inspire others to violence? Entirely possible. But neither of those questions begin with "why do you need the freedom to....".

I just said this over on Metafilter a few days ago, but I'll repeat it here: FDR first championed the ideas of 'freedom from want' and 'freedom from fear', which aren't freedoms at all. He hijacked the word. Freedom from want means the government should give you stuff; freedom from fear means it should shut people up you don't like. Both ideas are about putting other people in chains for your benefit.

You should have many 'freedoms to', but very few, if any, 'freedoms from'.

What often seems to be forgotten these days, though, is that with rights come responsibilities. Everyone seems to want the former without the latter.

And both of those questions above are very different questions than the ones on gun ownership. You asked "why do you need to drive at 120mph on public roads?". We both own vehicles that are entirely capable of driving that fast on public roads, but neither of us does. Both of us possess the ability to slander another individual, but neither of us does so -- at least deliberately . Neither of those questions assumes a particular behavior and restricts its ability at a point before intention is determined.

I agree that freedoms end where responsibilities begin, but in most cases, we make the restriction of freedom one that requires a compelling societal need.

And it is, similarly, illegal to assault someone using a firearm. It is no trivial matter either. I am told that law enforcement professionals are particularly grumpy about people committing crimes while armed with cordite powered kinetic energy weapons.

Here's a question. Assume two drivers are caught driving faster than the speed limit the same night, on the same stretch of road, and operating at the same speed. By all accounts,they endangered the same number of bystanders. There was, however, one important difference: one was driving an SUV and the other a compact car. Should the driver of the 6500 pound vehicle be charged more severely than the one driving the 2300 Honda Fit? Should American drivers be prohibited from owning vehicles that can exceed the speed limit?

How about if he was driving a vehicle that is the same gross weight, but capable of greater speed? Or if one had an automatic as opposed to manual transmission?

edit: or better yet: "looked" like it could go faster, but couldn't?

Or, better yet:

a. a kids hacks his high school's server
b. a kid hacks up an unauthorized access into a DoD intranet

(with no actual damage taking place in either case).

Who, if anyone at all, should be prosecuted more severely?

But there IS a mechanism that has worked for decades to determine where to draw the line. It is in the calculation of actual harm. We determined, a while back, that leaded paint had a true and compelling actual harm to our society and restricted its use. Though people are certainly capable of murdering others with scissors or compound hunting bows, most people generally do not. And though we restrict the context in which one can carry or use them, we do not make either illegal or make that ownership contingent on "need".

There has been precious little actual harm demonstrated in the legal ownership of sporting firearms. There has been a lot of propaganda that has been largely refuted and resurrected by folks with clearly political agendas, but the inescapable truth is that legally owned firearms are less dangerous than bathtubs or swimming pools (neither of which one needs to demonstrate "need" in order to own).

My point in bringing that up was not to go on the slippery slope argument, but rather to illustrate how little actual logic is used in the governance of firearms laws. The "Assault Weapon Ban" that hopliphobes championed was entirely a ban on cosmetic features. It is fair to say that it made not a single American safer or prevented a single crime.

It is distressing that the push for laws seems to be driven almost entirely from folks who hold complete ignorance of firearms as some sort of badge of honor (eg: the Brady folks) and their legislation demonstrates this ignorance AMPLY.

This is what happens when you start with the question "why do you need a flash suppressor/box magazine/pistol grip?" and not "What harm is society suffering and what is the proximal cause?".

In that case, I agree with you completely.

However, I would like to ask the question, "What is your benefit in having a flash suppressor / box magazine / pistol grip?" I'm truly curious. When does it go from something a law abiding citizen can find a use for, to something that will only really be useful when used against other humans. Maybe the flash suppressor and other equipment you listed has perfectly valid uses. But at some point, something will no longer really be useful to you for hunting or target practice and is just about "having a bigger gun".

Should you still have the freedom to have such items?

Without freedom of speech, I couldn't tell people to go f**k themselves. And that would make for a very sad me.

Hmm... public safety isn't the thinking or motivation behind gun laws? So because of weak wording on one particular ban on assault weapons the entire concept of gun laws is flawed? Isn't that throwing the baby out with the placenta?

So how would you word a more acceptable parameter list for a weapon that shouldn't be in general distribution? And don't give me that "responsible gun-owner" line... Walmart sells guns. Walmart. That means any yahoo with a credit card and valid ID can walk out with a weapon. So... what's the reasonable amount of firepower you want your average highschooler to get his hands on legally?

Put it in ironclad terms. No loopholes, no 'hidden' features. A simple set of guidelines that law enforcement and the legal system can use to end this confusion over what does, and doesn't constitute an illegal weapon. You can probably guess the intent of the people who wrote the current laws, so keep that as your guiding principle. What did they miss? How did they err? What NON-COSMETIC features should they have targeted to keep TRUE Assault Weapons out of the hands of young, angry, short-sighted citizens?

But there is one very fundamental difference. A spoiler is made to increase the rear drag of a car at high speeds (correct me if I'm using the wrong terms, I'm not a car whiz). Basically, it increases the performance of a car. While that car might go faster, increasing the likely hood of getting into a crash and possibly killing people, killing people is not what it is made for. Sure, if something shows that a particular part for a car increases the statistical likely hood of vehicular deaths, definitely throw some regulations on it.

But what is the purpose of a gun? To kill things. Now you might only take your gun out to shoot on the range, but that still doesn't negate the fact that the gun is made to kill things, whether that be animals or other people. And I believe that it is because of this that guns fall under a different category when it comes to regulations.

This reminds me of a German law passed after the high school massacre in Erfurt.
They banned pump action shot guns. Why? Because the guy who killed all these people was wielding one. As if this wasn't incredible enough I have to add that he didn't even fire it once, he only used his handgun.
Sometimes I wonder...

I'm glad that you (and the vast majority of gun owners) use the gun simply for recreation, but that still doesn't change the fact that the purpose of a gun is to kill things.

Ok, so do you believe people should be allowed to own an atomic bomb? I know, an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. What if someone had no desire to use the bomb for destruction, he just likes how it looks and uses it for decoration in his house. Does that make it ok? I'm assuming at this point you're most likely laughing at me, asking yourself, "Is this guy serious?" But think about it, its the same general principle. At some point, the potential harm the weapon could do far out weighs any "recreational" use the weapon could serve to the owner. Somewhere a line must be drawn indicating what society and the government feel will balance an owner's use of the weapon versus the possible harm that could be done.

Just because you would never use a weapon on another person, does not mean no one else would as well.