The 2nd Amendment wasn't put in for the Defense of a home invasion, for the recreational acts of hunting, it was established for the use of over throwing a tyrant government. If the Government and the military are able to own it, then the Citizens should just as well. Just in the off chance of the government invading OUR rights stated in the Bill of Rights. It doesn't matter is our founding fathers couldn't imagine assault weaponry. All the imagined was another Tyrant Government imposing them selves apon the citizens it governed over.
The second amendment should give rights to own and use assault weapons. This is because of the fact that the second amendment includes firearms. Assault weapons are firearms. To deny some firearms, but allow others is an attack on freedom. It is hypocritical to state that you can have right to arms, but to not include some types of firearms.
While properly qualified individuals should be allowed to own assault rifles in certain states, most Americans should not have their hands on these weapons. If a person follows federal and state requirements for such weapons, then their ownership is valid. The second Amendment doesn't necessarily make these weapons completely legal, though.
Uiourewsdefg rfgthyujytrertyuwertyuio ertyuiqwertyu rtyuiowert yu i i i iew5 sw4si5eixe5x 5ei5 4ies i54si eri si5e si 5eis i5e si ewsi 5wei s5ewi s 5we as5 esa 5e s 5ers es es e w as 5 wea ew wz etw z e stz er sz rse z ew z es z 4w z
If you know anything about history, the Founding Fathers put the second amendment in place to protect the people against a tyranny. Even the former President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln said ""This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." Our government tries to limit our ability to own guns because they say we don't need certain types of guns or magazine round limits. The second amendment clearly states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." What part of " shall not be infringed" do you not understand? State is the not the government, the state is the people. In United States v. Miller, U.S. 174, the Supreme court ruled that the government could limit any weapon that doesn't have a“reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” Last time I checked, it was the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. People think that I'm paranoid when I say that the government could turn against me. In Germany, 6 million people didn't think that their government would turn against them and look what happened. Another common argument used by the anti-gun lobby is that gun control laws stops criminals. You think banning guns will stop criminals?Please, tell me more how criminals follow laws.These laws only affect law abiding citizens.The North Hollywood shootout is a perfect example. Larry Phillips and Emil Matasareanu illegally converted the firearms they used, an HK-91 and a Type 56 to fully automatic. It is illegal to convert firearms to automatic in California , but that didn't stop them, they did it anyway. I do believe in background checks because we should know who we are selling gun. To completely stop gun crime is an unrealistic goal. If a majority of people were armed, then a shooter will not be able to shot off as many rounds as he wanted to before he is stopped . If everyone is disarmed, them some deranged maniac we be able to kill more people before the police arrive. According to the Wall Street Journal, the national average police response time is 11. In 11 minutes, a shooter can kill alot of people. Thats also another point of the other side. They say if there are magazine round limits , then the shooter can carry less ammo. He or she can just carry more magazines , its simple as that. Seung-Hui Cho had 19 ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack and killed 33 people including himself. So limiting magazines doesn't really help. Cho was declared mentally unfit, be he was still able to buy two guns. The US's mental health system needs to be patched, not the gun laws.
These semi-automatic firearms function just like any other firearm and a ban will only leave the criminals will them. What the United States should do is take a more thorough outlook on background checks and increase mental health funding and research with regards to firearm purchasing and close any loopholes.
The term "assault weapon" was made up by the media to fool incompetent people who know nothing about guns that rifles that have "scary looking cosmetic features" are some how more dangerous than other rifles. If "assault weapons are so dangerous, why do 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?
I don’t think that the second
amendment applies to assault weapons. I don’t
think that the founding fathers could even imagine assault weapons when they
wrote the constitution. I think that
assault weapons are unnecessary and they should all be outlawed. Assault weapons should only be used by
soldiers and law enforcement.
When the second amendment was conceived the founding fathers definitely did not have assault weapons in mind.They were more concerned with the treatment they were receiving from the British and wanted to make sure that in future times they could be protected from foreign invaders.They did not have the idea that people wanted to shoot their fellow citizens.
Every person should be able to own a means to defend themselves, but there is a fine line between defending yourself and going overboard with many unneeded equipmeant. Knives, and a handgun seem like they should be just fine for defense, someone breaks in you have at least something to help you out.
The second amendment should be used to allow the responsible and well trained gun owner the right to own and maintain as many guns as they want or need to but it should not allow the weapons typically used in the military to be used by the general public. The typical gun should be more then enough to repel the typical home invasion, for hunting purposes or for target practice. The ownership of assault weaponry is something implying the need/hope/wish to harm large groups of people, no matter the ideals behind the actual purpose.
The second amendment does not give people the right to own dangerous weapons. Technically, the law only says that a well organized is allowed to be armed. It never intended for normal people to have the right to deadly force. The law is anachronistic and it should be abolished immediately.
If the argument for maintaining the second amendment is defence, this is utterly pointless. Who needs an assault weapon except criminals? A Pistol would work just as well as a machine gun to deterring home invaders, is the reason why Conservatives talk about maintaining the Second Amendment. Only in America