I've never really understood why any civilian would want or need an assault rifle or fast fire gun...
Eider,
I chose to go back to an earlier post itt of yours to address something that in order to proceed profitably imo we should confront.
To understand "why any civilian would . . . need an assault rifle or fast fire gun", we need to come at it from the perspective of the right to bear arms.
Firstly we must establish whether or not such a right exists. Do you believe that people possess a native right to bear arms?
If so, then it's important to note that "assault rifles" and "fast fire guns" are better guns, and (in your parlance) "slow fire guns" are worse. All other things being equal, it's always better to have "fast fire" guns rather than "slow fire" guns. Along with the relative destruction that each single round from a gun imparts upon its target, is this measure of how fast it can fire another round. Taken together, these two metrics help to characterize the nature of the gun, and all other things being equal, a "faster firing" gun, with rounds that are more destructive, is better than a slower firing gun that fires less destructive rounds.
So if there is a native right to bear arms, then it is a right to bear faster firing and more destructive guns, and not a right to bear slower firing and less destructive ordnance guns. In fact to make laws that force people to only bear slower firing and less destructive guns is to make laws censoring or infringing that right.
I've introduced already the liberal idea that our rights are moral in nature, and that what this means is that to censor or infringe our rights is specifically immoral. iow to possess moral rights doesn't render your exercise of them moral, but instead it renders anyone else's invasion or denial of them immoral.
And if a government or law enforcement invades or denies our moral rights, then in so doing government or law enforcement disqualified themselves as a moral manifestation of we the people. Instead if government or law enforcement does this, they are being immoral, and if we are liberals then we also will say that they are criminal, because they are breaking the laws that liberalism believes are as native to mankind as are our native rights.
Whether or not these laws are written down and enforced, liberalism requires them, because along with being moral, liberalism is also legal in nature, it tells us what laws to make and judges laws according to itself, that is, liberalism is the standard against which we judge the justness of laws. Liberal laws are legal because they are moral, that is the connection between liberalism as a moral theory, and liberalism as a legal theory.
So, that all is where we are coming from, those of us who disagree with Canada and with New Zealand and England, and even with America where it has made laws limiting the availability of faster firing and more destructive guns. We see this all as profoundly immoral. Also in the US, there is the added negative that we are flagrantly disobeying our own Constitution.
But, what if the right to bear arms isn't real? What if it's made up? What if that was never correct, in centuries past, going all the way back to even the Roman era, back when Roman citizens were permitted to go about armed, what if it was always fictional that people possess a native right to bear arms? I think that if this is the case, then what Canada is doing is too slow, and that New Zealand and England are resting on their laurels, and that America is truly bordering on anarchy to permit us to own and carry weapons of war. If there is no right to bear arms then we should all instead be more like Japan or Taiwan or some other extremely restrictive country wrt civilian gun ownership.
And while it's possible that the right way through this is to leave it to democratic elections to determine whether or not this right is real, I rather think that it is theory that must guide us here, and not a simple majority, where most people think that severe restrictions on guns is good. If this ancient right to bear arms is fictional, then we ought to have a theory that explains how and why, not a popularity contest, because if we are wrong, and the right is real and inborn, then we are making a severe error in treating it as if it's imaginary.
