Amazon.com Widgets

Should assault weapons be allowed in the United States as means of allowing individuals to defend themselves?

  • 2nd Amendment

    Banning assault rifles and other semiautomatic weapons will only decrease our ability to defend ourselves. It will create a whole new market of illegal activity where illegal arms dealers benefit the most. Though there has been rare occurrences where people have needed an assault rifle to protect themselves it is STILL necessary. What if the cartel wars on the border spill onto US soil? Do you think a pistol is going to protect you from a cartel with assault rifles? Either way, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it won't be around. Drugs are illegal and those are extremely easy to buy. The ONLY people that will not be armed with assault rifles are law abiding citizens. Criminals will still be able to buy them with ease. My final statement is this. The 2nd amendment was put into place to protect ourselves from an oppressive government. Like I always say, it's better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

  • The 2nd amendment is about protecting citizens from the government

    ...Therefore the people can not accept to be outgunned by the government. I'd be happy to surrender all my semiautomatic firearms, but not until all law enforcement and military have already done the same. Then we can fight on equal terms with bolt actions and revolvers. Until then - out of my cold dead hands.

  • Statistics. Enough said.

    The statistics show that nearly 96% of gun-related violence is with illegally bought guns. Other statistics show that Assault Rifles and Long guns make close to 10% of all gun related murders, while handguns make up the VAST majority. Making assault rifles illegal will simply do nothing. Most murders were with an illegal weapon anyways. The 4% of murders with legal weapons will just become part of the 96%.

  • When would it ever be enough?

    They've banned the actual "assault weapons" by requiring a class 3 license. Where does it end with a person's right to defend themselves? Are all bolt action rifles going to be considered "sniper rifles" that the public doesn't need now? Are .22 pistols going to be the new "Saturday Night Specials?" Where does the quote, "Shall not be infringed" apply? When will it be enough and since when do crooks follow the law anyway?

  • Yes, but there's a catch

    I believe that owning an assault weapon, even a full auto weapon would be a good idea if the government could tax all transactions and the allowance of guns could only be given to organized militias or gun clubs. This would mean that to purchase such a weapon you would be required to join a group that is watched over by the state governments. These state governments should be able to determine to what extent of freedom people can have in regard to weapon ownership because I do believe that there are some states where automatic weapons with large clips make more sense than other states.

  • Yes, for personal defense.

    I must say I was a bit shocked by the first time I saw an Ar15 in the gun rack at the local Walmart. Who would ever want a gun like that, it serves no useful purpose, I told myself.

    It has since become the weapon of choice by the government for intimidation and slaughter of law-abiding citizens. It used to be the M1 was the weapon of choice to kill unarmed children. Now automatic weapons, armored vehicles and incendiary devices seems to be the government's choice for use against helpless children huddled in corners.

  • No, because assault weapons are far too powerful for use as individual home defense weapons.

    Assault weapons are designed to kill the maximum number of people in a minimum amount of time. They are not appropriate for home defense as they are extremely overpowered for that task. It would be akin to buying a Mack truck to pull a camping trailer. There are no legitimate civilian uses for such weapons.

    Posted by: SlyHymie
  • No Restrictions on guns!

    Regardless of the type of firearm or capacity, the crime is always committed by a criminal, not a legal, law abiding citizen, that went through the background check and deemed fit to possess such. This is where the liberal media and bleeding hearts are way off track. They want to talk about the gun and not the killer.

  • Its not the Need. Its the right.

    Many people say that the people don't need assault rifles to protect themselves. And under most circumstances they would be entirely correct. But the issue isn't about what people need. Its about what our rights as citizens are. We have inalienable rights protected under the constitution, the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, and you should view them equally.

    As Voltaire said " I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

    why would people not say the same thing for the right to bear arms?

    "I may not think you have a need to own an AR-15, but I will fight for your right to own one"

    In my opinion, Its somewhat hypocritical for people to pick and choose what inalienable rights individuals are allowed to have.

  • Anti-Gunners are so wrong

    I just read some of the comments of the liberal Anti-Gunners. It seems to me that they are okay with guns in general, but they don't like military style hunting rifles. First of all it sounds like they are all right with people getting shot one or two times, but when some psycho goes into a mall or a school and shoots multiple people thats an outrage and we have to blame the guns. Fact is that the Virginia Tech shooting was done with handguns as was the Dunblane School shooting in the UK. This is why the NRA is against any new gun control legislation. They know that if they get the Semi-Auto rifles banned, the next step will be handguns. Another fact is that the percentage of gun crimes committed with so called "assault rifles" is only 3 or 4 percent. Most of the crimes are done by criminals with illegal handguns. Another proven fact is that where there are more legal concealed carry permits there is much less crime.
    England has outlawed guns completely and has the highest violent crime rate in the world. The same goes for Australia. Look it up. The truth is guns don't kill people, people kill people.

  • Seriously? Come on people.

    Do you REALLY need an assault weapon to defend yourself? Really? You would only really need an assault weapon to defeat large amounts of people, at most you might need to defend yourself from one or two people if someone ever tries to break into your house. A pistol would work just as well, or a rifle. You do not need an assault weapon, your home is not a warzone! I can't imagine someone carrying an assault weapon around with them, that's just WAY too dangerous, and a pistol or a rifle works just as well when you need to defend your house. You don't need to be spraying bullets all over the place, it takes only one good shot to kill someone. I know people argue that people can get guns illegally, but there will be less of them. If someone takes a gun on you, and you want to defend yourself with your own gun, it doesn't really matter how many bullets it can spray out at a time, it just matters how quick you are a shot. And I also know, guns don't kill people, people kill people, but it makes it a lot EASIER for people to kill people if there are a bunch of assault weapons lying around. And if you use a knife, you can't really kill that many people, maybe just one or two if you sneak up on them. You won't have any mass murders with a knife.

  • It's the only answer

    While 99.9% of the people owning assault rifles would never shoot a person with one, there is no way of identifying the .1% who would. That is, until they go on a rampage. And by then, it's too late. Innocent people, hundreds in the past decade, are killed; stripped of their right to live and let live. Therefore, we have to choose. Is it better to reduce the chances of innocent people being massacred by a mad with an assault rifle? Or is it better to deprive everyone-- law-abiding and not--from owning an assault rifle. Since no one losses their life with the second choice, it is the better of the two. To think otherwise is just plain selfish.

  • Assault weapons are made to kill, not to defend, so they have no place in the hands of private citizens.

    Assault weapons are not meant to do anything, except spray massive amounts of bullets into a person over a short period of time. When defending oneself, a clear shot to the leg can disarm a person. Killing is not the aim in self-defense. These weapons are the ones that are killing America's youth, and they should be banned outright.

    Posted by: NoisyAlva89
  • Too many in the hands of criminals

    I don't want the criminal element having such an easy time getting guns... With out that nonsense, I wouldn't need a gun. What are we paying the cops for anyhow? To run around and give out tickets? Let THEM carry the guns and deal with the scumbags. A least that way there will be less guns for the depressed of the mentally unstable to get their murderous paws on!

  • Assault weaponry can harm a lot more people than pistols or shotguns.

    If there was another shooting and the shooter had an assault weapon it would probably kill a lot more people than if he had a pistol, shotgun, rifle, etc. But if this person didn't have an assault weapon then the death and injury rate caused by those weapons would be a lot lower.

  • But Why?

    There is no justification for ARs. Self-defense against what? The Army of China coming to your door? Why can't a shotgun or a hunting rifle serve the purpose? You know, guns that wouldn't disintegrate a deer into thin air. And they're the 10 AMENDments not commandants. We can change them for the times.

  • NO

    Assault rifles are designed for wars and civil wars/revolutions, NOT THE BLOODY STREETS or a house, the calibers are expected to be used against people in cover, or with body armor, a pistol, knife, shotgun ARE useful, you don't need to kill a an injury is enough, then call the cops, that is more heroic, assault rifles are meant to kill, war weapons not civil defense. Oh in case your confused with the spelling, I'm British, an we know better about the use of weapons, we get crime, but not much and hardly any gun crime, in fact a gun shot comes once a year, if you want your country to be seen as the greatest country on earth then be civilized and at least look like a place where even a extremist can own an RPG or AK-47, and can kill more than 5 people even tourists.

  • What real reason exists for them to be in civilian hands?

    There are already enough firearms available to adequately defend oneself and their family, and to hunt. What real reason is there for a civilian to have a access to a high capacity rapid fire assault weapon?

    The 2nd amendment argument is ridiculous. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." What reason has the government gave for the people to fear it? Only people on the wrong side of the law need to fear.

  • Guns, yes. Semi-automatics, no.

    People who talk about needing to own a gun to protect from a tyrannical government are just a little paranoid. Own guns... yes. Own a gun with a 20 round magazine clip... why? To protect you from the big bad government with the largest, most capable military power in the world? That is silly. Protect you from a home invader? Agreed but no need for a semi-auto with a high capacity clip. People need to grow up and understand that antiquated legislation is no longer relevant. There will never be another Civil war people... get over yourselves.

  • Paranoid gun owners

    A lot of the comments from the yes crowd include comments such as this latest one; "the fact that they want to disarm these law abiding citizens would lead me to believe if they ever needed to own one, now is the time!"

    All that has so far been proposed is a ban on the further sale of certain kinds of guns and hi-capacity magazines. No news reports have suggested that the government is going to strip the population of its firearms. Has the government even stated that this is its position?

    Why is there so much paranoia around what should be a simple issue? The last few days have been filled with news stories of shootings of various kinds. Guns need to be discussed.


Research this topic: United States, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-04-21T18:51:18.847
Only strong people should be allowed assault weapons, if you can proove your sanity, like if your family and u trust the person its ok but if ur just random not yet. No hunting just for fun, only for food. Everyone has to be happy, magazine size doesn’t really matter, you have to trust the guy behind the gun. As long as people are educated and bad people are in jail being rehabilitated. We should have guards anywhere theirs a threat, i should always be able to trust a guy with a gun or bomb. Because those people have to be defending us. You have to know to defend, trustworthy citezens and mothers with babies should be allowed somthing to defent themselves, even if its just a phone, with an emergncy 911 button or a built in tazer that would be nice.