What if?.. What I'd we got invaded? Would you want you and your loved ones not being able to fight back? Watching your mother being murdered and not being able to kill the murderer? You say "you could use a pistol". Remember I started off with what if. I'm no extremist. Think about America, and the people you love
Assault weapons are not that bad it is the people who use them to do horrific crimes like school shootings that are bad. The goverment should punish those people and stop them from killing civilians instead of punishing america for a select group of peoples actions.
Our founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms just for hunting but to also for protection of ourselves and our country.
Assault weapons are necessary for defense against tyranny because they are the weapons of the common soldier -- just as the flintlock musket was during the Revolutionary War era. In Federalist #46, one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, argued for an armed citizenry. At the time, there was a fear that if the United States had a standing army, it could one day be used against American citizens. Madison believed that a United States standing army would consist of no more than "twenty-five or thirty thousand men." If the citizens were armed, they would consist of a militia of almost "half a million citizens." He argued that it was doubtful that a standing army of thirty thousand could conquer a half million armed citizens. Surely the Founding Fathers didn't expect the citizens to arm themselves with sticks. To repel a standing army, the citizens must possess the weapon of the common soldier. Today, the common soldier's weapon is an assault rifle.
It has to be in your house with the clip out of the weapon and put in a different area away from the gun. It has to be in single or in burst fire. The citizen has to be in the armed forces or has been under police training. There can be more added to hold a assault weapon but those are some main details for holding assault weapons. Therefore, citizens should be able to hold assault weaponry.
The FBI has estimated 'assault weapons' are responsible for 1/10th of 1% of all murders in the US. Fundamentally, it's not as if there is some epidemic of violence with these guns. They're merely more visible than other types. Therefore the 'too dangerous' argument has absolutely no bearing. So yes they should be allowed.
The amendment does not specify what type of guns you are and are not aloud to own. Although full auto guns require a special permit to own, which is not easy to get from what I hear, the ability to posses a weapon that could possibly save your life some day is a RIGHT. To be honest I think civilians should have access to buy any equipment that the military has.
Seriously, why do we all think that assault rifles are a huge problem, when really the only danger is the person behind the sights. Basically, if you no/a non-violent criminal record, you should be permitted to own a assault rifle, whether it be for self defense or recreational purposes. Although there have been many recent shootings in the US involving assault weapons, they were all preformed by people who either had mental illness or were suffering from some form trauma, so yes, I believe normal, healthy, innocent citizens should be allowed to own assault weapons
We were allowed to bear arms since before the Revolutionary War. An assault rifle is a gun but a gun is a bear arm. So with this said as long as we fight for this reason is alive we should fight for the full package like our fore fathers did.
We should keep the second amendment because we need to have self protection against criminals and in case the government tries to hold too much power. Also we need the second amendment because it helps us to keep and bear arms in our safety to the world and others around us.
These "assault rifles" the media has been attacking for quite some time now aren't actually all that bad. They're just rifles that have higher magazines than most semi-auto weapons. I could do the same amount of damage with two handguns that I could with an assault rifle. Also, the 2nd amendment doesn't exclude any types of arms. It just says that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon". What the Second Amendment says is that we have the right to have a military, it doesn't exclusively apply to individuals. And ordinary civilians do not require assault weapons.
Considering that the right to bear arms is our second amendment and since that amendment doesn't specify which guns that we are permitted to use we should be able to bear assault weaponry. The problem with that is that as you may know now guns in general are causing problems throughout our country. I think that any efforts to stop the increase of gun distribution should be initiated. I am not saying overall get rid of guns; I am saying we should terminate all efforts to make the distribution of guns proliferate.
In the constitution, it states that the government can do whatever is necessary and proper to run the country. If they don't feel that it is safe for people to run around with assault rifles, then they have the right to challenge any of the bill of rights. All guns can do damage and cause harm. You DO have rights to own dangerous weapons. Not being able to own assault weaponry shouldn't make people mad. Leave the bigger guns to the army.
The United States of America is defined by our rights, one of the most basic being our right to bear arms. Despite this being at the route of our country, the 2nd amendment however is flawed. The use of weapons such as hunting rifles and semi-automatic weapons alongside anything more simple that is banned in other countries, should, in my view, be legal as these weapons have their own uses such as hunting and a more basic form of self defense. Larger weapons, and fully automatic weapons have no valid use. Using them for hunting would just be overkill as the meat is replaced by lead, and defending oneself from a foe does not require an arsenal suited to something that anyone preparing for the zombie apocalypse would drool over, a sidearm, bolt-action rifle or even a semi-automatic rifle would do just fine.
When the second amendment was created, the law enforcement and military we have today to protect our citizens did not exist. The wording in the original amendment stated that a well regulated militia had the right to bear arms for the safety of the state. This wording has been manipulated by lawmakers to imply that all citizens should be able to own guns.This is not the case since we now have police and military, which means we do not have a true need to own guns; and given the finality and ease that they can end lives, not everyone should be allowed to own them. Especially an assault rifle that does extreme damage with ease.
No citizen needs an AR-15. The 2nd Amendment was written when there were muskets, not automatic guns. Guns are not the same as assault weapons. A handgun is way different than an assault weapon which is a military grade rifle. Citizens should not be able to have those. Again, this amendment was written about MUSKETS.
This allows teenagers to go on social media post pictures with themselves holding guns with their finger on the trigger which can be accidentally pulled killing themselves. Which is why people should not be able to own assault weapons. More suicides and accidental death will happen due to all the assault weapons and dumb people who think they are cool and can impress others.
Citizens owning assault weapons could cause way more murders and mass suicides because the guns can hold way more bullets than a regular gun. It is also giving kids more reason to go on social media just to show off and then it could be longer added and ready to fire so it gives kids a reason to use social media
There is no reason that you would need an assault rifle. If you are needing a gun for protection then a simple pistol or even a shotgun would work. I personally think that only the United States military should be able to own these weapons that could cause so much damage to families and kill so many .
The second amendment was written long before assault weapons existed, so the argument that it covers any weapon at all does not hold water. It's just common sense that citizens should not be able to own a rocket propelled grenade launcher or a nuclear warhead. Where do we draw the line? I would argue that assault weapons are a good place to start. They are not needed for protection, unless your household is being invaded by an army. And in that case, the U.S. Army is trained and much better equipped to save you.