Amazon.com Widgets

Should citizens have the right in the second amendment to own assault weaponry?

  • Yes, people should have their right to firearms.

    Since it is written in the amendments, unfortunately people have the right to own arms. If you take away that right, you are violating their civil rights. However, I think it should carry some stiff laws, a lot of training, and plenty of background checks. Right now it is still too easy to obtains a firearm.

  • Yes, people should have their right to firearms.

    Since it is written in the amendments, unfortunately people have the right to own arms. If you take away that right, you are violating their civil rights. However, I think it should carry some stiff laws, a lot of training, and plenty of background checks. Right now it is still too easy to obtains a firearm.

  • "against tyrannical governments"

    There's nothing better than a semi-automatic rifle to fight a fat fascist. The founding fathers knew about semi-automatic rifles. Look up the "Girandoni". It was extremely deadly; it had as much power as a .45. They still saw this weapon as a weapon for the people to fight against government.
    Look at Lenin, disarmed his people. Mao did, stalin did, and hitler did.
    So please, don't think it wouldn't happen again.
    I also don't see why people are so scared of them. Less than 300 people a year die from them (according to the Expanded Homicide Data Table 8) from Fbi.GoV.
    You be better off fearing pistols. Don't just be scared of the look of it, understand it.

  • Today it is assault rifles, tomorrow it is side arms

    Over the last 50 years, we have had law-abiding citizens that have owned M16's, AK-47's, and even Bushmasters and society remained the same, but because last year, the 2 deadliest shootings of the year were committed by assault rifles, therefore we should ban them now, there isn't any logic to it, Chicago has had more deaths than both incidents combined in the last year yet you can't own an assault rifle in Cook County (Chicago), these perpetrators didn't commit these crimes because they had assault rifles, they committed them because they were mentally ill, the fact that they acquired these arms shows that gun regulation needs to be enforced but not gun control, anti-depressants isn't a factor when it comes to restricting ones gun rights, maybe that should be enforced first

  • Self preservation illegal? Defense against government

    From my paper. Shortly after World War 2, in Athens, and Etowah, Tennessee, there was a great span of corruption where the McMinn County Sheriff’s Department and the local officials took bribes, illegally failed to monitor whisky production, and used voting fraud in elections to maintain their positions. A battle broke out between the citizens, World War 2 veterans, and the corrupted deputies and politicians. The deputies fired on a black civilian voter and proclaimed to the people, “You sons-of-bitches cross this street and I'll kill you!” For several years the citizens of the county requested monitoring officials from the state and federal government because of the fraud, but never was there a response. Force was necessarily used against the corrupt sheriff and deputies who stole the ballots and took them to the jail. The deputies were not even legally at the poles according to Tennessee state law. Several ex GIs and local boys took back their community and the criminal politicians and deputies fled.

  • No. Our Constitutional rights are not without imitations.

    The Second Amendment refers to the right to bear arms in order for the formation of a well regulated militia- which nearly no one in the United States actually belong to. It was also intended to provide a way for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, which is no longer relevant. The Second Amendment was written in a time when rifles were the only firearm and they took five minutes to reload. The formal military had the same type of weapons the common man did, so it was feasible the people could fight the government. Today, with the ridiculously bloated military budget we have and the sophisticated weaponry, there is no way regular citizens, assault rifles or no, could fight the federal government. That is what the National Guard is for.
    Our Constitutional rights are also not without restrictions. Just like the freedom of speech and assembly have restrictions based on public safety and harm to other citizens, we do not have the right to own any piece of weaponry available.

  • No they shouldn't have the right to use the second amendment to own assault weaponry.

    Because when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment, they didn't have assault weapons. All they had was hunting rifles and hand guns, so they could provide food and protection for their families. Assault rifles aren't used for hunting for food or protecting your family from dangers. What they are used for is killing and warfare.

  • No need for Military style weapons

    I really don't understand the need to owns military style weapons. In the aftermath of mass shooting in Colorado and Newtown we should do all we can to ban these machines of death, you cant hunt with them and you can defend your home with a pistol or shotgun so there is no positive need for them except for people to feel powerful because they own them.


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