• David Cohen: While a simple answer would be yes, the pragmatist in me knows that such a ban would be almost impossible to pass. I would however, prefer to see stricter enforcement of existing laws, including stronger screening processes for people buying firearms.
• Karen Anderson: No. However, permission to carry should be extremely limited and great care taken when they are sold.
• Jeff Nunes: No, because it has already been done and automatic weapons were not used in the recent mass murders. Since 1986 the ownership of automatic weapons not previously registered with the BATF has been illegal. Furthermore, semi-automatic weapons were used in the recent murders. But, even banning all semi-automatic weapons will do little to nothing to prevent the kind of tragedies that have befallen the nation recently and would violate individuals’ rights under the 2nd Amendment.
• Julian Mancias: Yes.They should have been banned a long time ago.
• Jeff Smith: No. Banning fully automatic weapons for civilians I think is a good idea, but military and police still need these to defend against criminals in our society that don’t care about the law and will obtain them anyway.
• Lisa Pampuch: Yes. An analysis prepared for California Assembly Joint Resolution 45 stated, “Studies show a significant decrease in the use of these weapons in crimes committed during the period of 1994 to 2004 when they were banned by the federal law. During the first nine years of the ban, the use of assault weapons in crime dropped by two-thirds. The number of gun murders in the country dropped 7 percent during the ban. … Additionally, police chiefs across the country have reported increases in assault weapons used in crime and used against them.”
• Dave Appling: Full-automatic weapons are already banned from the general public, long since. As to semi-automatics (“assault rifles” and their ilk), yes, the ban should be reinstated. These weapons are for hunting people, not game. Failing that: strictly license them, and outlaw mega-magazines and full-automatic conversion kits entirely.
• Kathy Sullivan: Yes, we seem to be able to kill and maim fast enough as it is.
• Dennis Kennedy: No! But weapons of mass destruction, designed for military combat should be banned or heavily restricted and controlled.
• Henry Miller: How many ways are there to say YES? As a past member of The National Rifle Association and one who participated in competitive marksmanship for many years, I have never seen any reason to own automatic weapons. Can’t compete, Can’t hunt. Can only maim and kill. If they are included in The Second Amendment, why not Bazookas?
• Chris Bryant: Yes, while they would be useful in a zombie apocalypse, they are unnecessary for any reasonable use. Non-automatic weapons are enough.
• Bert Berson: Yes. There is no reason for private ownership of a high capacity automatic weapon.
