Size/Power of Ammo
Much has been said about how "powerful" assault rifles are, and their image has been thus demonizied and the reality of the situation obscured. Therefore I will clear up some myths about the different types of ammo.
Pistol ammo: These are typically the shortest rounds which means that they have less powder than either assault rifle or hunting rounds. What this means is they have less force and travel slower. However, bullets work on the principle of physics that force x mass = power. However, these bullets compensate for this lack of force by having much larger masses. Than say the bullet fired from the M-16. For example the .45 acp pistol round is 2x bigger than the bullet fired from the aforementioned M-16.
Assault Rifle ammo: These are called intermediate rounds. The reason is they are longer than pistol rounds and thus have more force than pistol rounds...but less force than the more powerful caliburs used in hunting. Also, they tend to have smaller bullets than pistols. For example, the AK-47 originally fired a 7.62mm bullet which is smaller than the popular (but ineffective/inefficient) 9mm pistol round but larger than the M-16 bullet. In fact, the trend in assault rifles is actually to make them smaller. Thus the M-16 and AK series of assault rifles now fire a bullet about as big in diameter as a .22 which is used to hunt squirells. This is why Tennessee and other states have banned the use of M-16 calibur ammo in deer hunting...it cannot assure a clean and quick kill.
Hunting Ammo: Often times the diameter of the bullet fired from a traditional hunting rifle is smaller than the diameter of a pistol bullet. However, this is compensanted by using a soft lead core, hollow point or jacketed round. The smaller diameter is further compensated by using a longer bullet which means more mass than an military round. The round's casing is also significantly larger which means that it has more force. Thus this is perhaps the most lethal type of ammo available.
Conclusion: The side of the argument that makes the claim that assault rifle ammo is inheriently more lethal and/or assault rifles are only designed to kill thus operates from an assumption that is 100% wrong. Furthermore, this is not a matter of opinion but of either historical and/or scientific fact.
I know you must be thinking how arrogant of me this statement is. But since a bullet's ballistic characteristic does NOT change with the ideological beliefs of either the shooter or the victim but remain constant because of physics...makes this objective fact. Therefore, to say that I am correct and GNE is wrong is actually a valueless statement based upon reality.
Rate of Fire
Anti-gunners point to the higher rate of fire of "automatics" than more traditional actions. Semi-automatics which fall under no special category of regulation (unlike full autos) are capable of rates of fire that are as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger. But so are double-action revolvers. This argument fails because a high rate of fire is highly inaccurate because the recoil causes the rifle barrel to pull up which means bullets are fired into the sky or ceiling. It also means that a criminal is quickly going to find themselves without ammo.
There is also the argument that they can be re-loaded faster because they are by and large fed by detachable (and often high capacity) magazines. The same effect can be achieved by smaller capacity mags as well as revolvers. Many revolvers have their cylinders mounted in such a way that empty shells can be ejected and replaced by speed-loaders in about the same amount of time that it takes to reload a high-capactiy magazine.
The real world examples of the N. Hollywood shoot-out, 1989 Stockton massacre and 2007 VT massacre demonstrate how ineffective assault rifles are compared to handguns.
Suitability for crime
I do not know how many times I hear anti-gunners say the only use for an assault rifle clone is crime. They point to superficial cosmetics to prove their point such as bayonet lugs, pistol grips and grenade launchers. However, these points fail because they are either not used in crime nor compensate for why rifles are not effective in crime.
1) Any rifle (be it an assault rifle or hunting rifle) is too long to conceal. If you look at my past links you'll see a refrence to a government report (Department of Justice) that shows inmates who used guns in crime by and large would NOT use an assault rifle or other rifle because it is too difficult to conceal.
2) The same report showed that weight was another disadvantage in the commission of a crime.
3) They are just not considered lethal enough.
Now many anti-gunners claim that a pistol grip compensates for these disadvantages because it allows for a higher rate of fire. I have already shown that this "spray & pray" technique is ineffective. The anti-gunner claim actually makes this worse...not better. A high rate of fire fired from the hip is even harder to control and even more inaccurate. This is why military grade assault rifles no longer come with full auto as a firing option...but rather a 3rd "burst". Thus reality and operationally proven fact contradicts anti-gun arguments and ideology...objectively proving it false.
Also bayonets are not used in crime...ever.
Grenade launchers are also not used in crime because those available to civilians are only capable of firing flares or obsolete grenades that are impossible to buy because they no longer exist in any quantity worth going through the trouble of taking to the black market.
Militias vs Mercenaries
You conflate the two. Sweden and Israel rely upon an armed citizenry as has the US historically. One of the reasons we were not invaded by Japan was because they knew they would repulsed by people defending their homes. Defending one's home is different from mercenaries who leave their homes to fight. So while there will always be corruption in any human endeavor, true militias in the modern, Western sense do not display the characteristics you feel they do.
Masons
I am a Mason. I am a Master Mason in the Blue Lodges of the Missouri Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free & Accepted Masons as well as the the Oklahoma Grand Lodge of the Prince Hall Assembly. Furthermore, I am familiar with the baseless disdain many fundamentalists hold for Masonry as well as the misconception that Masonry is a religion or a cult.
In order to become a Mason one must profess a belief in the Abrahamic God. In other words, one MUST be either Jewish, Christian or Muslim to join. Our rituals/ceremonies are nondenominational and include readings and teachings from the Holy Bible.
Nor do we hide our existance. We have webpages that give information about us and locations of our lodges. As for individual members, we are actually encouraged to display our affiliation by wearing Masonic jewelry and/or putting auto emblems on our cars. Furthermore, we conduct our funeral ceremony publicly outside of the Lodge. Oh yeah, if you go to a Lodge you will see that we post our meeting times for the public to see.
About the only that is hidden is our passwords and secret handshakes. We do this because like any private entity we like to conduct our business only amongst ourselves.
And so the vast majority of your arguments in which you try to question my membership in the Masons prove to be wrong. Obviously you have read much on Masonry...however you have been mislead at several junctures and therefore your knowledge is based upon falsehoods and lies. Thus when you attempt to call me out the result is you unintentionally bear false witness against me. I am a Mason.