Question for folks who want to ban civilian use of semi-auto firearms:

Me personally? No I don't see it that way. Some folks do, you will hear some argue that yeah a private citizen should be able to own a fully armed Arleigh-Burke Class Destroyer if they can afford it but I'm not in that camp.

I believe it refers to personally owned handheld weaponry designed to be operated by a single person, IE handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.

Mainly regulated to what Law Enforcement can have. The military is designated as a national defense force to fight wars. So I am perfectly fine with the military having nasty weaponry that can be deployed against foreign enemies. However, Law Enforcement is a civil protection force that is there to protect citizens. They walk among us, the military does not (as in the military doesn't patrol my neighborhood in an M1 tank, they obviously walk among us seeing how I am walking among you all).

So if a police officer is able to carry it, Joe citizen needs to be able to carry it. That includes specialized police forces such as SWAT.

An organization designed to protect the citizens of a nation does not need to be more heavily armed than the citizens they are supposed to be protecting. Mainly, if a police officer is justified for needing access to an AR-15 because society is sometimes dangerous enough to warrant that then that means society is sometimes dangerous enough to warrant that, so us citizens who live in society need access to those too.

But as I said, it's fine but make it consistent across the board. There is no justification why a police officer charged with protecting me in society may need access to an AR-15 BECAUSE OF society when Joe citizen lives in the society and he can't have access to one. If society isn't dangerous enough for people to need AR-15s then why should those in charge of protecting us within society have any reason to need them either?

 

A lawful and government force who's purpose is to protect me as a US citizen. So, their job is to protect me, they require weaponry to protect me because of the dangerous aspect of the society we live in. So if our society is that dangerous to where those in charge of protecting us require firearms to do so then we must obviously live in a pretty dangerous society....So those citizens who live in the dangerous society all the time should probably have the means by which to protect themselves since those in charge of protecting us have to patrol around with guns because it's apparently so dangerous out here.

British cops don't carry guns for the most part. If our society isn't that dangerous then why do our cops need to be walking around with guns?

Do a poll asking what percentage of US Law Enforcement Officers would be comfortable patrolling our streets unarmed. Your poll will deliver a resounding NO from police officers in the United States. And then ask them why they wouldn't feel comfortable doing that.

The answer they give you is justifiable, and it's the same justification that Joe Citizen has.

 

Hell yes it's absolutely pragmatic for American civilians to be as militarized as a lawful government force....It's pragmatic for the GOVERNMENT for the bolded reason which is exactly how it should be.

America is a free democratic republic, we elect our government officials here. Our government doesn't just get to do whatever it wants regardless of the will of the people. In America we are governed because we LET THEM, not because we have no choice. The government answers to us, not the other way around, and that extremely important balance of power exists largely in part for the reasons you said.

Afghanistan contains one hell of an insurgency comprised of multiple lightly organized small militias who have been giving the most powerful military in the history of planet Earth a run for it's money for almost 20 years at this point. And that's Afghanistan, imagine trying to impose your will on the American people without our permission...

In any other nation their government could impose it's will on their people and there would be very little the people could do about it.

In a nation with literally more guns than citizens in the hands of the citizens....good luck. And that is absolutely how it should be. In a free society the citizens SHOULD have the ability to cause a nasty insurrection against their government if it ever came to that. If the citizens are ever that pissed off that they feel the need to rise up against their government that means the government is no longer adhering itself to the will of it's citizens and needs to be replaced with one that does.