Quote:
|
My reasoning is that FA was designed purely for military use for fire suppression and area denial. Neither of which is suitable or appropriate for civilian self defense.
|
Those are entirely suitable and appropriate for civilian use against groups of attackers, which in the case of riot situations such as the '92 LA Riots, hurricanes or other natural disasters, and protests gone wrong are entirely within one's right and interest of defense. Rare, granted, but far from nonexistent and in many locations increasingly likely. Also the situation of gang attacks and/or home invasions make for situations of multiple armed attackers for which every advantage is useful. Maritime defense is another common use for which civilian use is entirely appropriate.
Further, it's not only military. LE and security/executive protection makes use of select fire or at very least insist they have the option on what they carry. Why? Multiple hits on target fast bring down attackers faster, and when in tight situtations you want them down IMMEDIATELY. Note the ads for Thompsons in the 20's and early 30's: they were marketed for guarding banks, railroad cars, and ranches (the latter against wolves!), hardly what I'd call paramilitary use.
Lastly, a core purpose of the 2nd Amendment is parity. You want military/LE/feds to have an edge over the civilian population? I for one don't. The entire point is to prevent a government going Castro-esque and the only thing that keeps them from doing so is how difficult it is made for them to do so. We should want that to be as absolutely difficult as possible. The political conditions we see now make it crystal clear just how much separation we need from it.