"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Our forefathers knew that some day we might need groups of armed citizens to defend the country absent of it's military. Tho a foreign military might bomb hard targets like military bases, they are more likely to land on soft targets like civilian areas so they can gain a foothold quickly. Knowing some of our enemies, they wouldn't think twice about using innocent civilians as human shields making any military action to take the area back very difficult. That would leave defending our homes, and towns up to the few local officers and civilians. Clearly an enemy force would be equipped with fully automatic weapons so you can't expect people to hold off such a group with bolt action rifles. If people who would pass regulations were allowed to own at least semi-automatic weapons, at least they may hold off an attack till the military can get there instead of just being killed, captured, or held as shields.
Yes, so far, we have been relatively lucky when it comes to enemy invasions on our shores but with so many against our country, it may be a matter of time before a red dawn situation occurs.
Thing is, if we outlawed all semi-auto guns, who is going to give them up? Law abiding citizens. Who is not going to give them up? Criminals that likely don't have them legally in the first place. That means that it would not stop anyone from being killed.
Look at it another way. With so many people dying from heroin overdoses, if we make heroin illegal then it would stop. Right? Oh wait. It's already illegal yet people still get it. Does making something illegal cause it to stop? Nope.
People should have the right to keep and bear arms because it is in our constitution and it clearly says that out right shall not be infringed on.
It is our right. People that say oh if we have gun control people will be safer. Well they are wrong because drugs are illegal correct so how do thousands of people die each year do to drugs.
I am not going to say that every civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle. The guns are not the problem, the people that have the guns are. I own many rifles semi-automatic, bolt action, muzzle loader, and pump, but never have any of my rifles harmed anyone. People buying guns need to have a mental evaluation of some kind, because people with mental problems buying guns spells trouble.
You ever heard of this thing called the second amendment? It's this cool thing George Washington and Abe Lincoln teamed up to create that says I can own any gun I want. Who cares if I've never shot anything bigger than the mole on my wife's left ear? I say that we shouldn't even be limiting fully-auto guns. You heard me! Let me get my hands on an AK so I can put a stop to all you lib-cucks trying to take my guns!
This is subjective as no one needs any firearm until they are hunting, in a competition/training, or faced with a threat. Firearms are a want until they are needed. I am educated enough to know that history repeats itself and will protect myself and those around me if or when the time arises.
Pistols are also semi-automatic, with the difference being that pistols are concealable. If you carried 30 magazines with you, you can fire off around 300 rounds extremely quickly. It only takes a few seconds to reload. Against unarmed victims, pistols are just as deadly than semi auto rifles. They shouldn't be banned because they frighten some people. Next thing to be banned is pistols then shotguns. It absolutely is a slippery slope.
I'm 16, female, 5'3" and weigh 110 pounds. A gun for me would be an equilizer for the male gender, they are in general, biologically stronger and taller. I'm not going to fight a f*cking man close up with pepper spray or a knife, thank you. What if i'm in a space where I can't run?
There is too much harm caused by non-militia civilians by these weapons. There is other ways to defend against criminals like tazers. I don't see any mass killings with tasers do you? How about pepper spray, or mace?
There are many alternatives to semi-automatic weapons. A good example is a gun that only has one bullet. That should be good enough to defend yourself.
The average civilian does not require neither a semi-automatic rifle nor a full automatic. Some have argued that semi-automatic rifles can be used for hunting, but we already have a gun more suited to that: hunting rifles. Hunting does not necessitate the use of a firearm with a high rate of fire. And if you desire protection, semi-automatic pistols will suffice.
There is absolutely no need for a civilian to have a semi-automatic.
Protection - More likely to shoot a family member than a criminal.
Hunting - If you need a 20 round magazine and high rate of fire, than maybe hunting isn't your thing.
Looking cool - Buy a bigger truck or something to compensate for your small size.
You don't "need" a semi-automatic, the very statement is outrageous and implies you "need" a semi-automatic like you "need" water. If you want to go play; "Tyrannical nuclear armed-government who has surpassed the next eight nations is going to be defeated through a nearly insignificant weapon they use for regulating them." fine but don't pin it as a need, you choose to "want" semi-automatic weapons to regulate the government or trolley down the road like an armed thugs ready to open fire; fine. At least with people who keep their guns responsibly at home and use it for personal hobby I can agree with but the argument never goes there as dishonesty, fear, and power-hungry people make arguments for for fire-arms like religious people for their gods. I put myself as mixed on gun-control but questions like these further my opinion to being con.