Show of HandsShow of Hands

romero1429 November 18th, 2017 6:07am

Assault/automatic weapons should be restricted only to military personnel. This question is not intended to violate the right to bear arms.

5 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

knetzere Illinois
11/18/17 7:42 am

I disagree no technology should be kept from the general population

knetzere Illinois
11/20/17 9:39 am

Now do you have a reasonable objection to what I said or only hyperbole?

Harry3603 Tampa Bay Florida.
11/20/17 11:11 am

Yup. Arming the bad guys with WMDs is a bit over the top, although it could put an end to all of the murders in Chicago.

Alcerus fascist
11/18/17 12:29 am

Automatic? Yes. Assault? No.

Military studies have shown that service members who use full auto barely ever hit what they're aiming at. I know that these weapons are for suppressive fire, but when we're talking about defending the homeland from all enemies, foreign and domestic, having hundreds of rounds spray out isn't a positive thing when you consider that American civilians are likely to be behind your target to some extent.

I'm not sure what you mean by "assault rifles", but since I already addressed full auto rifles, I will address semiautomatic combat rifles and "modern sporting rifles". When discussing the right to bear arms in order to protect the nation, semiautos make a lot of sense. Fast, accurate, and reasonably powerful out to a certain distance. For area defense, these weapons are a very practical choice. However, like any defensive weapon, they can also be used for offensive purposes. I'm not going to argue this, but I wouldn't want to have to use a revolver I.C.E.

Reply
Alcerus fascist
11/18/17 12:40 am

(In case of emergency) for some type of national emergency, such as a foreign invasion or some kind of violent uprising that I need to protect myself, my loved ones, and my neighborhood from. This is really a positive thing for military veterans to have these kinds of weapons, especially those rifles which they have received years of formal training on, for the specific purpose and goal of defending American lives. However, I can't speak for those with zero training, those who find the idea of guns to be "mesmerizing", or the stereotypical "mall ninja" types. Honestly, I think that compulsory weapons training for a new firearm owner is a "common sense" gun law that actually has a lot of common sense. This would drill in a respect for the weapon, with a massive focus on firearm safety.

I don't expect everyone to undergo rigorous military training, but some kind of basic weapon handling and safety class should be required. There are too many people that shoot themselves accidentally...

romero1429
11/18/17 2:31 am

Thank you for your informative response.

Robert97206 Portland Oregon
11/18/17 5:45 am

Damn it I want to comment but I think you covered everything.

knetzere Illinois
11/18/17 7:41 am

I disagree about select fire and I think more people practice and train than you realize