and others, its harder but it can be done

slugs i;ve heard are a real pain (literally) with them

Oh cool

Definitely more practical in CQC

CQC?

also I love that i found it in the wood finish

it Just looks....

more shotgun

Close quarters combat

☝️

Id argue that a wrist cannon of that nature is less than ideal in CQC though

🤣

Maybe

wait

@jerpeau @HUNTER4639 for what ever reason

I was thinkin of "combat" startign with a q

English 100

https://tenor.com/view/english-grammar-the-simpsons-impossible-unpossible-gif-5412254

For close combat/tight rooms, I prefer the HK UMP 40. Stays close to the body. Less for threats to grab on to.

but

but if ther is no arm left on the threat

how can they grab your gun

Youd be surprised

fair enough

Are y’all in favor of c4 legalization, full auto ban removed, and lifting suppressor restrictions

Duh

Maybe not the c4 though, that's a bit too indiscriminate for me

Yes to last two, no to first one.

I mean, the second amendment states that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. So, it depends on whether you consider a C4 to be under the element of arms. If I can have a cannon, why can't I have C4?

A cannon can't be used as a bomb that you carry in your backpack

5th gen warfare is more prevalent than ever and allowing people to outright buy explosives like C4 wouldn't help anyone. Full auto can be used for defense against the govt and suppressors are just nice to have in general

I suppose. I'm not even sure. I just think overall, the right to bear arms isn't to be infringed. So, I tend to lean towards overall freedom.

yes but total freedom leads to anarchy. There needs to be some sort of govt control but not enough to be interfering with daily life. Giving states more rights considering how much they've pushed it already will just make it worse

Federal govt should prevent states from infringing because they're more likely to than Feds at this point

I agree that federal government should prevent the infringement. And I think it is important to look at the reasoning that the bill of rights was written the way it was written. We are granted inalienable rights, that the government should not be infringed. The second amendment is necessary in the situation of a tyrannical government. I think there is also a slippery slope argument that has to be made based on how gun laws have already been enacted. As we have seen, the more any gun laws have been pushed, the more restrictions are offered. I agree C4 may be more dangerous then you expect, but I think it is important not to help create more restrictions on our end.

There's a difference between arms and armaments

I mean, the term arm in reference to weapons originates from armaments.

If people can riot for 3+ months with bricks and cause billions in damage with random shit, you think they'll just ignore the part where they can walk into Ace hardware and buy C4?

It would help nothing. It's only to destroy destroy destroy

I mean, if the Government gets tyrannical how else are you supposed to sabotage their tanks and have dramatic entrances???

🤣