Anyone who supports restrictions on firearms that are suitable for combat use -- "assault weapons" -- is just plain anti-gun and an enemy of the Second Amendment. That certainly includes Mitt Romney.
Retaining our "assault weapons" is
absolutely necessary to the preservation of our rights. There can be no compromise on the issue.
Manedwolf said:
And anyone who would ban "assault" weapons, which is a complete misnomer applied to anything that looks scary, since an ACTUAL assault weapon is a select-fire or full-auto rifle, is trash.
While I understand where you're coming from, I have to disagree.
"Assault weapons" may not be full-auto, but they can still be fired
very quickly and are well-suited for combat use. The lack of full-auto fire is not a major handicap -- in fact, semi-auto is better in every way at distances beyond 25m or so,
according to the Army. Even inside 25m, if your problem can't be solved with a semi shooting 5 or 6 rounds per second, you're already probably screwed.
Flash suppressors aren't merely cosmetic. They help prevent being blinded in low light, and they help hide your position.
Pistol grips aid in weapon control during firing and during handling activities such as mag changes. So they're not merely cosmetic, either.
Why am I pointing these things out? It's not to be argumentative, but just because it seems important not to take our ability to still get these weapons for granted. And again, I do agree with you about Mitt Romney.
