Amazon.com Widgets
  • They are guaranteed under the Second Amendment and would have NO positive effect

    They make up less than 2% of gun homicides, the 2 worst mass shootings in the entire WORLD were not committed by them (which dismisses the argument that they have the ability to kill more people) and in the past TEN YEARS, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings? It just makes no sense. Not to mention, 90% of law enforcement officers say they do NOT support a ban on them and an "assault weapons" ban would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT.

    AR 15s are sporting/home defense rifles. Nothing special about them. Tell me something. Why should "assault weapons" be banned if less than 300 people are killed a year by them (75% being criminals since most murder victims are criminals) but alcohol shouldn't be banned when 10,000 people are killed a year by drunk drivers?

  • Yes but no

    I'm not against owning an assault rifle (Even a fully automatic-capable one), but there isn't much use for an assault rifle outside the military. Nevertheless, I don't think an assault rifle ban would reduce crime significantly. After all, law abiding citizens would be affected by gun laws, not criminals. Therefore, I'm against ANY gun control law.

  • A gun is a gun.

    Assault weapons can do the same thing as pistols/handguns, fire rounds. The term "assault weapons" is for aesthetic purposes. Anyone can modify a pistol by making longer magazines and adding a longer barrel. The removal of assault weapons will only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals will still obtains assault weapons through the black market. A gun is just a hunk of metal without the use of a human being. So yes they should be allowed for citizens for defense purposes.

  • Yes citizens should.

    First off, Citizens don't have real assault weapons. They just have semi-automatics that just happen to look like them. An AR15 is no more lethal than any other gun, regardless of it's function. AR15 are also perfect tools for home defence and hunting due to their ergonomic improvements over the years. Plus, If I had to, I can teach my wife and kids to use it to defend themselves from a threat if the ever had to. Having an AR15 can also protect you from civil unrest following a natural disaster or a bad court case. Look at the riots after Rodney king and OJ. Only way to protect yourself from that is with an AR15 or similar class rifle.

  • No, there is no difference in different weapons.

    I believe that there is no big difference in different weapons, I think that people who use assault weapons to shoot other people unjustly might as well shoot the same people from a handgun or shotgun. I think that instead we should make sure that we don't give weapons to mentally unstable people who can start shooting others unjustly.

  • Citizens do not Need Assault Weapons.

    Assault weapons, such as the AR-15, are serious weapons, which I believe should only be reserved for members of the military or police officers. If citizens are concerned with protection, they should buy a hand gun, not something as serious as an assault weapon. An assault weapon is much too deadly for citizen hands to hold.

  • No NO NO

    You are undermining authority by using weapons that only a trained professional should use. I trully believe it wasn't our founding fathers intentions to have civilians handling assualt weapons. When you watch TV and they show third world countries with men and children running around with assualt weapons it disgusting. The USA is better than that! Don't bring our country down.

    Posted by: JRM

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