How do you feel about the statement "Military weapons should be left on the battlefield"?

I think military weapons should be left in the arms room or you should be carrying it. Left on the battlefield means you died. Only a small percentage of gun owners actually own "military weapons". Getting a class 3 permit isn't cheap or easy. If you told me I had to carry a weapon into battle that I could by as a civilian I'd tell you where to put it. The second part of that is the second amendment. Personal ownership of firearms is part of keeping us free from the "tyranny of the government" yet they are still allowed to have better guns than us? Now they want to downgrade further or try to stop ownership altogether? Sad.....

First understand that the second amendment was not written in regards to hunting needs It written to provide for self defense and as a national defense against tyranny and foreign invasion. The meaning of a well regulated militia was that a militia made up of the people would be just as capable as the standing army and that a government because of this would be at the will of the people and not over the people. So at that time weapons were single fire is irrelevant as the reasons for having a weapon have not changed.

During WW2 when the Japanese General was asked why he did not want to invade Hawaii he stated because of the 2nd amendment there would be a machine gun behind every tree and in every home it would be impossible. So here is a modern example why we still need military grade weapons in the hands of civilians. No other country on earth has been able to match that power or fought off an invasion with just words on paper.

So that statement is a fallacious one, it will not prevent criminal intent nor will it allow for the sufficient arming of the citizen militia but it will send a signal too criminals and foreign invaders that we are becoming weak and susceptible to the whims of an overpowering person or force including tyranny and the maniac attack.

If our soldiers were armed with the rifles that over 90% of American civilians own on a battlefield, aside from snipers, they would be extremely out-gunned. A big difference between our guns and military guns is when I pull the trigger only one bullet comes out.

I wholeheartedly agree statement is true, but I don't see how it contradicts what is going on with over 90% of civilian gun owners in America. I agree, a ban is ignorant.

Every rifle in existence today is base on a "at one time" military design. From the match-lock to the AR-15. Today's society no longer wants to put the blame for any wrong doing on the individual who perpetrated the act. It's always something else's fault. Like the weapon possessed the individual and made them do it.

Obama says that because he knows the anti gun crowd is ignorant and will react very emotionally to it.

Go to the politics section and you have a ridiculous amount of lefties in there talking about how an AR-15 supposedly shoots 700 rounds a second and that a 5.56x45 round will vaporize a deer.

On the contrary, the Second Amendment is intended to ensure that "Military Weapons" stay in the hands of the general citizenry. This is simply another excuse to disarm American citizens.

And for those of you who said "Oh, Obama will never do that, he hasn't yet."

I told you so.

Seen it before.

Consider the source....

Military weapons are regulated under current laws. The NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968 & the Hughes Ammendment of 1986 & various import laws.

I have a bolt action Enfield .303 that was originally a military rifle. Guess I shouldn't have that.

Hell, flintlocks were once military weapons.

That would be something of a waste of money. The troops might need those weapons again. And the bad guys might pick them up and use them.

And the sentiment is so stupid that it deserves a reply like this.

on no account..... i do no longer think of even an outsider breaking into their domicile with a kitchen knife and butchering their finished kinfolk would exchange a leftist's suggestions, or heart..... they have not have been given any theory that a guy denied the flexibility of self protection, and the protection of others, is a slave they have purely a Hollywood seen the workings of a firearm.... they think of that one shot of a 9mm will positioned an entire grown guy severe on drugs and adrenalin precise via a wall..... they won't draw close that even a 40 4 magazine...."the main efficient handgun interior the international in accordance to 'grimy Harry'" won't give up a crazed killer with one shot... until one is extremely fortunate or a damn solid shot decrease than severe rigidity......and that they think of that that's suitable to could wait 10-15-30 min for the police to reach... in the event that they might additionally be referred to as... jointly as a maniac with a baseball bat....severe on drugs....rapes and kills your spouse and daughter jointly as you lay bleeding to loss of life on the floor watching...... the leftist loonies think of that's "heroic" that that woman theory walked precise out interior the corridor in front of an outsider with a gun that had already been fired..... and tried to ........ communicate him out of it......... or it extremely is is wonderful that the lecturers hearded the youngsters into communities making it extra easy for the killer to kill extra of them..... instead of having the youngsters out the window and runnig away.... and then taking pictures the SOB ........... that's what the so-referred to as hero theory could have carried out..... none of those little ones would have died if one or 2 of the workplace artwork tension were carrying the flexibility of SELF protection.......yet no........ the instructor were instructed to herd the youngsters jointly so extra could die............regular leftist insanity