Originally Posted by MP0WER
1) In order to give half the population a false sense of security in hopes they feel safe.
2) In order to get the weapon platform that would be most effective for the private sector should we have to defend ourselves against an armed force.
I can't think of another logical reason but i'm open to theories.
I think their reason is more strategic than that. It's the slippery slope. They think these types of guns will be the easiest to ban because they look scary, they can (falsely) convince people they're machine guns or very powerful due to what people see in movies, and few people own them compared to pistols, handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns. Then they'll have a precedent and be able to say "well, if it was a good idea to ban these guns even though they're used in about 1% of gun homicide, then logically you should favor banning these other guns that operate in eaxctly the same way that are responsible for the other 99% (one bite at a time- not the other 99% all at once).
It makes no sense to start with the weapons that are most in line with the intent of the 2nd amendment. Extra irony: the first type of gun control was a ban on sawed off shotguns. The justification was that the military didn't use these, so it was a weapon that was useless for militia duty. Somehow, we're using that same precedent to try to control guns that are IDEAL for militia/military duty.