I’m curious what you mean by “military and officers should have “easy” access to them.”
Do you think they should have better access to guns while performing their jobs only, or are you saying that they should be treated like a separate class entirely, with special privileges?
Where I live, gun laws are fairly restrictive, and to get a license a civilian has to pass an FBI background check, complete a live-fire training course, and submit an application (with multiple character references) and go through an interview process with the local police to explain why you need a firearm. AR15s (among others) are banned outright, and all guns are limited to a 10 round magazine. (Not to mention bans on certain rifle attachments that have little to no bearing on making the rifle more “dangerous”.)
Meanwhile, military and law enforcement can purchase whatever they want, banned or not (i.e. AR15s, 30 round mags, banned handguns and rifles). This is regardless of whether they are using it for personal or professional reasons. (Let’s be honest, these guys aren’t buying their own rifles to go on patrol.) If you go online to look at what a local gun shop has in stock, they will have certain firearms listed at “LE only”. These Law Enforcement only firearms are usually sold at much lower prices (~50%) than they normally would be as well.
Given this scenario, do you feel that this is reasonable?
Drastically reduction of guns WILL save your kids lives at school. But not “muh outdated rights from centuries ago”.
Btw I’m not against guns, military and officers should have “easy” access to them.
I’m curious what you mean by “military and officers should have “easy” access to them.”
Do you think they should have better access to guns while performing their jobs only, or are you saying that they should be treated like a separate class entirely, with special privileges?
Kinda both?
Where I live, gun laws are fairly restrictive, and to get a license a civilian has to pass an FBI background check, complete a live-fire training course, and submit an application (with multiple character references) and go through an interview process with the local police to explain why you need a firearm. AR15s (among others) are banned outright, and all guns are limited to a 10 round magazine. (Not to mention bans on certain rifle attachments that have little to no bearing on making the rifle more “dangerous”.)
Meanwhile, military and law enforcement can purchase whatever they want, banned or not (i.e. AR15s, 30 round mags, banned handguns and rifles). This is regardless of whether they are using it for personal or professional reasons. (Let’s be honest, these guys aren’t buying their own rifles to go on patrol.) If you go online to look at what a local gun shop has in stock, they will have certain firearms listed at “LE only”. These Law Enforcement only firearms are usually sold at much lower prices (~50%) than they normally would be as well.
Given this scenario, do you feel that this is reasonable?
Arms but only in the hands of the state. Specifically the American state, the heart of the dystopian global empire. What could possibly go wrong.
Honestly with the shitshow of this upcoming term, and more ceos for the picking, youll only be getting my guns from my cold dead hands.
The military is one of the hardest places to get access to guns and ammo at the same time though.