I have always doubted the validity of that poll. I was an officer in the Army and my own informal polling on the topic led me to conclude that it would not happen.
Even if they started such a mission I don’t think very many would finish it after the first shoot-out with a regular Joe with a family.
Guns are an emotional issue for many but like most topics in the public debate today they seek more to assign blame rather than deal with the root causes of the problem.
With that said, I have taken plenty of heat on this board for my views which lean more towards more standard firearms instead of the exotic stuff where the risk to the public might outweigh my enjoyment of shooting said weapons.
I think we as firearms owners and the firearms industry as a whole need to try and be smart about what we do and don’t support. The first time someone uses a .50 caliber rifle to destroy an airliner full of people on the ground there will probably be massive public support for no more .50 calibers. That is one example that I can think of where maybe the risks to the public outweigh my individual rights. It’s not what I would do with it that I worry about...
I’m a pretty radical pro-2nd Amdnedment type. I think that private citizens should have access to everything a Light Infantryman would... at minimum!
Have serious doubts about anybody ever using a .50 cal rifle to knock down an airliner. Maybe you could disable one on the ground with a few well placed shots, but taking out a flying one would be a heck of an achievment in marksmanship.