Look, I'm all for civilians being allowed firearms for self defense, but why do you need a heavy-duty gun? I see no reason why someone would need a gun that's bigger than a pistol, especially if it's for self defense. If you don't feel safe in your neighborhood, are you going to walk around with an AR-15? No. I think not.
Well of course. Semi-automatic/automatic weapons have always been banned for private ownership in my country. Several other sorts of firearms are also banned. We have significantly less gun crime and extremely few gun-related massacres in our history.
Tell me, do you need a machine gun to protect yourself?
The answer is probably no.
Do you need a machine gun recreationally?
The answer is probably no.
America should pass more gun laws.
What confuses me the most is that people would buy these firearms to defend themselves. No one needs an AR-15, M1A, and/or a Dragunov to defend themselves from burglars. A simple bolt-action firearm would do fine. The type of gun won't even matter if it's against the government. Hundreds of SWAT members and Obama's tanks, drones, jets, and bazookas would make your gun looked pointless.
At the time the Constitution was written America had no standing army. The Second Amendment was a reflection of the fear the Founding Fathers had for large standing armies with the prospect of violent revolution.
Technology of the time did not envision a single shooter being able to injure or kill so many so quickly. No other country seems to have the mass shooter let alone school shootings that America does - contrary to the fact that we have more guns per capita than ANY other country.
Time has long passed for America to cater to a small minority that endangers the rest of the country.
Most criminals with military style guns arent using them for home break ins car jackings or to commit the one on one crimes that so many are trying to use to keep those guns on the public market and most of them occure either when the home is empty or when the individual is away from home what next we see people walking around m16 s and rocket launchers. Ok not rocket launchers. So why would we need more of them in the homes of civilians where they can be stolen for free instead of costing an arm and a leg keeping most criminals from getting them because of cost. Guns are one of the top items stolen in a burglery of home or car or business and one of the hardest to recover
I do not believe that all guns should be banned here in the United States of America because people do have that right to own guns. However, just because somebody has the right does not mean that they have the right to own every single type of gun that was created.
The founding fathers were not idiots. They knew technology regarding all of the parts of the constitution would change. If they thought the rights shouldn't progress with the technology then they would have stated that. If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to semi-automatic rifles, I guess the first amendment shouldn't apply to free speech on the internet because they couldn't have possibly imagined that either right?
If you ban AR-15s some psychopath is just going to take a shotgun or a handgun and do the exact same thing. Then that's going to give gun control advocates another retarded excuse to ban those types of weapons. Look at what weapon was used in the 2011 Norway Attacks. It was a Ruger Mini 30 and a Glock handgun. A Ruger mini 30 is a ranch rifle and nowhere close to an assault weapon. And how many people were killed in that tragic attack? Seventy seven people total. And that was after a massive bomb was detonated injuring over two hundred more people. And let me remind why AR-15s are actually useful for civilians. I heard a story on the news about a guy who lived in a lower income neighborhood in Ohio and was never involved in any criminal activity. Yet he reported to the police that over thirteen men were standing on his front lawn with over half of them armed with weapons. It takes three minutes or more give or take for the police to arrive at your house when you call 911. In that span of time, what would have happened had this group of robbers decided to open fire on his home? There would be slim chance of survival. Also, more children die of drowning in pools in America each year than from firearms. But there have not been any regulations on if you need a swimming pool or not. Do you need a swimming pool? No, but it's your right to buy one. Same with cars. Does it need to be able to reach 120 miles per hour? No but you can choose for it to have that capability because it's their choice. Same with AR-15s. It's not a matter of whether you need it or not but rather of choice. If I want an AR-15 to defend my home, then that's my choice and right. No one should tell me what I can buy to defend the life of my family or myself. What's even more sad is that gun control advocates and politicians see gun control as a means of advancement of their reputation, not as a means to keep people safe. Selfish people.
Since I'm an American I believe that we should carry guns because its our rights to carry what we need to protect ourselves what if there's a terrorist attack and the people in a neighborhood are taken hostage, if they had guns they could have fought of the terrorists and bring peace to there family's and friends.
I know many people that possess semi automatic weapons, some rifles, some pistols. I personally own 3 guns myself at a young age. It does not matter what type of gun you have, if you mean harm you will cause harm. Why do I want to own an AR15? Because they are fun. Recreational shooting is a hobby for me, along with hunting, and an AR15 is fun. It is somewhat affordable, which is a plus. I want to try and appeal to people who support gun laws but I figure the majority of you are prius driving, gardening, book reading, enviromentalists. Its hard to relate something adrenaline filled and thrilling to someone who gets their jolly from solar panels and tomato plants.
Remember back when Kennedy ran as president for a short-lived time? Well, he, much like most liberals, had gun control. He was, however, killed with a gun he banned. Oh, and, gun control doesn't help stop crime like liberals believe. Gun dealers still sell their goods whether or not it's legal because they know, like I do, that gun control is not helpful. Presidents have seen the result of gun control, it's not beautiful.
Unless the firearm in question is fully automatic (but according to the resolution, they're not) it's basically a big pistol. It fires one shot per trigger pull. Just like a pistol. It can take a variety of magazines. Just like a pistol. The only real difference is, it's just bigger and fires a different bullet. If you're scared of a gun because of it's looks, then you have some serious fear issues.
Okay, so let's look at the question, and ask ourselves: "What guns would this actually ban?". Well, while you would get rid of anti-material receivers like the .50 AE Beowulf for the AR-15, you would also get rid of .22 LR receivers for the AR-15. You would be banning the type of round that is synonymous with what a young rural boy is given on their birthday.
Now then, this is assuming of course that the legislation is somehow able to define a "semi-automatic military style firearm" as something that everyone can agree is just that. In reality, chances are that the legislation will end up banning any and all semi-automatic firearms, which mind you, include the various shotguns that are used in hunting, police forces, and competition shooting.
Many anti-gun activists don't know what types of guns there are. The image specified a civilian semiautomatic AR-15. For example, a semiautomatic weapon has a low fire rate, often 3 to 10 times less than their military counterparts. They also have low calibers compared to other weapons, which means less penetration power. Take the .22 LR version of the AR-15, with its small caliber and low penetration power. These rifles can't kill a minimally armed policeman or policewoman.