Amazon.com Widgets

Should assault weapons be banned from citizen use in the U.S.?

  • Assault weapons should not be in the hands of private citizens.

    Assault weapons should be banned for use by private citizens. There is absolutely no reason why a person needs an assault weapon. Guns have many uses. They offer protection from wildlife in rural areas as well as protection from crime. Assault weapons are not for protection. They are for killing. There is no place in society for assault weapons � there is no practical use or necessity. These weapons should be for use only by the military and law enforcement, and even then only in the most extreme circumstances.

  • Citizens have no justifiable need for assault weapons in the United States.

    Civilians do not have a justifiable need for military style assault weapons in the United States. The type of ammunition they use would do far too much damage to hunting game for it too still be consumable. Private citizens looking to protect themselves also do not need a magazine worth of ammunition to deter criminals.

  • Yes, citizens have no use for assault weapons and they are too dangerous for civilian use.

    Ciivilians have no use for assault weapons. They are not for hunting or sport and they are only used to kill, which is against the law. Individuals can bear arms to protect themselves in their homes well with standard pistols and rifles. Assault weapons on the streets only make them more dangerous overall.

  • Understand why we have arms in the first place.

    Yes, yes, we all hear the arguments"guns are used for protection". And the counterargument to that is always "no one needs to fend of home intruders with an 'assault weapon'". But people overlook the very purpose that we have this right to begin with. The right to bear arms was implemented so that citizens may have protection- against a tyrannical government.

    Perhaps it is not necessary to fend off a burglar with a semi-automatic, but as the government obtains increasingly sophisticated technologies, the people should be able to counter those technologies. To defend ourselves from said government, and as our second amendment suggested, we must form our own militia in opposition. And an effective militia must have effective tools.

    See, the debate is so simple. People overlook the elephant standing in the middle of the room; perhaps they somehow never noticed it to begin with. It is much more than individualized self-defense. It is the defense of the national- the people. We -do- have a use for assault weapons (just not yet).

  • First of all: what's an assault weapon?

    Part of the problem with a ban on assault weapons is that there's so little definition for what an assault weapon really is. When does one gun qualify as an assault weapon and another gone does not? Is it the color? the size? the caliber? the amount of ammunition it can carry before it is reloaded? It seems to be all about whether it LOOKS scary, rather than a quantifiable or technical term. How can you really ban something without defining which things need to be banned and which things are okay?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.