Amazon.com Widgets
  • They have been legal for 100 years.

    Why would they ever become illegal for law abiding citizens? They have been legal for 100+ years.
    Its old technology nothing new to it other than manufactures changing cosmetic features and capacity on some models no different than when you go to the auto dealer choose your style, economy, luxury comfort or sports race inspired cars. Even though the anti-gun lobby don't say maybe because they don't know they just hate guns period but the glorified AR15 semi-automatic is not any match for the firepower carried by our warriors and they want to call them weapons of war its hype to sway people that do not know or have knowledge of firearms in general so those are easily swayed.

  • Our rights ARE relevant!

    This person is actually incorrect your right to bear arms is relevant! Yes it was for militia I will agree with that, and as people we are the militia of the United States of America. If another country invaded us today you would be expected to pick up a rifle and defend yourself if you are able. Another thing, is the idea that "what are the chances"... what are they chances you get struck by lightning? not good but if you carry a lightning rod at all times it goes up. Yes if your retarded and dont lock or train your children(yes I said train but thats not being debated here) to use correctly the firearm it is a potential harm to them but most people know how to do this. And lastly what is your better option for defending yourself against a intruder with a gun then a gun? you may still die yes but its better then running 50 feet with a bat in your hand at them while they shoot at you... if you have one at least you have the option of defending yourself and not the option to just lay down and die. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

  • Right to bear arms

    The founding fathers of this country included the right to bear arms into our constitution because they had just fought a long war of independence from an oppressive government. An armed populace is the best defense against tyranny. The theory was to keep the population armed with equal weapons to protect them from any aggressors, foreign OR domestic.

  • The more the better

    To be clear, "semi-automatic" means that one still needs to pull the trigger to shoot a round as opposed to "automatic".

    All I can say is that in the heat of battle, precision is of the utmost importance. However, there is no guarantee that one will be precise or accurate. Therefore, the more shots one has guarantees that the margin for error is higher.

    I have both a 17-round magazine and a 6-round magazine pistols. When I shoot my recently bought 6-round pistol, I am "shocked" when I am done because of the small number of shots that I have. I pray that if I were to ever need it that I am precise because 6 shots goes by fast. Imagine if there is more than one perpetrator (perp) - what then?

    Needless to say, no one wants to shoot more than they need if the situation were to be called for. As in the Oregon Mall shooting, if the gunman did not kill himself, but instead engage the conceal carry (CCW) individual, the odds of the CCW winning are low given the amount of rounds and weapons that the shooter had. Most CCW hope (1) to never use their weapon and (2) if needed, to keep the perp occupied (to not kill other unarmed) until the police can come (~10 minutes).

  • Semi-auto guns are just as powerful as a regular gun, one shot and you're down.

    Just because they didn't have semi-auto guns in 1776 doesn't mean that they didn't want them legal. I think that if you have a gun, it doesn't matter if its semi-auto or not, a bullet wound is a bullet wound.

  • Enough is Enough

    We need not only bans on semi-automatic guns but also very extensive background checks and licensing before someone is allowed to purchase a gun. And finally, we need to lock up people that commit any kind of crime using a fire arm. I live in Chicago and the murder rate here is ridiculous. If we just keep doing the same old thing, we'll keep getting the same old results.

  • Shooting to Stop Requires More than one round

    Using a semiautomatic weapon to reload requires only one hand. If I were pinned or injured with even a double action revolver, I would have a more difficult time using more than one round to stop the attack. The difference in time can be the difference between a survival without trauma and being disarmed and traumatized, or dead.

  • All guns kill

    Yes, that's right.
    I use to be on the edge about semi-auto rifles for civilians. But after studying the ballistics of pistols, shotguns, and rifle rounds. I have come to find out that a hollow point .45 will knock anyone back just as hard (if not harder) then a .223/7.62.
    People are attacking one specific weapon, but i have a question. Is a .357 or .45 a little deadly in comparison to a .223/7.62?

  • They had semi auto rifles in 1779

    The Girandoni repeating rifle was a 20 shot semi-auto and was available in 1779, about 20 years before the 2nd amendment was adopted. It was somewhat impractical due to the manufacturing capabilities of the time but the concept of a semi auto was clearly known while the bill of rights was being written.

  • Yes they should

    I think that all guns should be legal. People should have the right to own any kind of gun they wanted, of course as long as they weren't hurting people or anything like that. I think it would be good if people had to take gun safety and responsibility classes if they want to own a gun.

  • Right to Bear Arms isn't Relevant anymore

    Right to bear arms was only a right because of militia men fighting the war at that time. Now we have no use for them. Defense isn't that good of a reason because really, what is the chance you are going to have a gun on hand when somebody is trying to kill you? It takes too much time to get it out. If it is loaded, it could be a hazard to children. If it isn't, you probably won't have enough time to defend yourself.

  • It's not the type of the gun, it's the skill

    My argument is simply this, just because you have a pistol, it doesnt mean you will lose to a semi-automatic weapon. If you have good training in using a handgun or non semi-automatic weapon, you can defend yourself with only a handgun or no semi-automatic weapon. I believe in rights to bear arms but not the right to bear semi-automatic arms.

  • No longer necessary and useless against the government

    Over 20% of our nation's budget is spent on the military. That is horrendous and excessive. Which essentially means that we stand no chance against the U.S. Government should they declare martial law or decide to repress the people. Semi-automatic weapons in civilian hands are dangerous and are not necessary. A regular pistol can defend your home just fine from animals and people. It is much more difficult for a mentally-ill individual kill a bunch of people at the same time if they only have access to a single-round gun, rather than a mass-killing machine.

  • 2nd Amendment Irrelevant; Emphasis on "Semi-automatic"

    I believe that the 2nd Amendment has become irrelevant over the last few decades. It was initially put in place because the United States was not yet as unified and cohesive or powerful as it is today. Any foreign attacks against the US can be quite easily responded to by our military. Any attacks from within the government are almost completely impossible because of our republican governmental structure. Attacks from within the government would have to be controlled the the Commander in Chief, aka the President, who can only hold power for a maximum of 8 years (assuming he or she is elected both times). The President cannot declare martial law unless "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" (Article 1, Section 9). Therefore, defense against our government can only be relevant in the case of Rebellion, in which the government MUST suppress the use of guns by citizens, or during Invasion, in which it would likely be unnecessary or even futile. It is extremely unlikely that citizens could stand a chance against the advanced weaponry of any formal military either way, foreign or domestic. ALSO, any home invasion or other situation in which a standard revolver pistol with 5 or 6 shots won't work is rare. Not often do people need several magazines of bullets to protect themselves from anyone that wishes them harm. The restriction of guns to revolvers would also drastically reduce the amount of deaths in mass shootings involving legally-purchased weapons, mainly because the time and effort needed to reload such weapons gives victims much more time to either flee from or attack the shooter.

  • A fearful America.

    America is too immature and frightened to be allowed any weapons in the hands of private citzens. Switzerland and Canada have equal numbers of weapons, however, they are considered tools. Tools to scare off criters that threatening live stock, tools to put dinner on the table or tools for national defense. There is nothing wrong with owning weapons, but there is something wrong about America's attitude towards guns. All the YES votes entertain this 12 year old boy's fantasy of a shoot out with the bad guys. Sadly, you shouldn't be allowed to own anything more powerful than a pellet gun, until gun ownership isn't such an entrenched part of your mythology. No guns ntil you are mature enough not to want them so much.

  • Peter Clemenza's Guns and Cannoli

    Guns are designed to cause injury or destruction, and thereby, deserve some very careful consideration regarding their availability and to whom. I do not believe it is necessary for the average civilian to own a semi-automatic nor to protect the rights to own such weapons.

    Incidentally, cannoli and many number of other foods contribute to the obesity of our nation- killing many. These sweets and fast foods are readily available, but I'd like to believe the wise parent doesn't just allow their child unlimited access. In their infinite wisdom, the caring parent grants greater choice and freedom with maturity.

    Protecting the freedom of the right to bear arms needs to be carefully considered and I do not believe our society in general (though some individuals may be) is mature enough to handle the freedom of semi-automatic weapons.

  • Peter Clemenza's Guns and Cannoli

    Guns are designed to cause injury or destruction, and thereby, deserve some very careful consideration regarding their availability and to whom. I do not believe it is necessary for the average civilian to own a semi-automatic nor to protect the rights to own such weapons.

    Incidentally, cannoli and many number of other foods contribute to the obesity of our nation- killing many. These sweets and fast foods are readily available, but I'd like to believe the wise parent doesn't just allow their child unlimited access. In their infinite wisdom, the caring parent grants greater choice and freedom with maturity.

    Protecting the freedom of the right to bear arms needs to be carefully considered and I do not believe our society in general (though some individuals may be) is mature enough to handle the freedom of semi-automatic weapons.

  • Semi-automatic guns are being used in mass killings too frequently

    The US needs to be like Australia that has not had a mass killing since they instituted their ban. These weapons are not necessary for anyone to own. People can still keep their guns to defend themselves but we need to do away with these mass killing machines. Sandy Hook, Aurora, Orlando, Columbine, etc. We do not have the means federally to do a proper consistent background check for everyone buying a gun so we need to ban the sale of semi-automatic guns now and require citizens to turn existing ones over to the government.

  • Why would they?

    Why would semiautomatic guns bike legal. One would not hunt with them and you certainly wouldn't need one to defend yourself in a ho e invasion. So why should they be legal. Never having shot one before, I can still imagine that they may be fun to play with but is that enough of a reason to keep them legal? So that it is easier to have them be put in the wrong hands? Personally, I don't think so.

  • Why would they?

    Why would semiautomatic guns bike legal. One would not hunt with them and you certainly wouldn't need one to defend yourself in a ho e invasion. So why should they be legal. Never having shot one before, I can still imagine that they may be fun to play with but is that enough of a reason to keep them legal? So that it is easier to have them be put in the wrong hands? Personally, I don't think so.


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