I advocate for an assault weapon ban. However, do you think there is some truth to the much argued 2nd amendment?

Asked by: ilovejews7
  • Excuse me? Gun lobby?

    Owning a gun is a right and the last defense against our tyrannical government. This is not hysteria but historic fact- whenever you lose your right to bear arms you lose all of your other freedoms shortly thereafter. I have no more common sense to say, bla bla bla bla

  • We need assault riffles.

    The main point to the second amendment is to give Americans the right to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical. The US military already utilizes some of the finest weapons known to man, and it's only fair to the American people to ensure them that if the government stops being the servant of the people, we have the means to replace it.

  • Yes there is.

    I will preface this by stating I do not support an "assault weapons" ban.
    The second amendment is extremely important in America and to America's history. An armed populace is, above all, a deterrent to a tyrannical government. The claims that the amendment is outdated are silly. It is no more outdated than the first.

  • Some truth not all truth.


    The right to keep and own a fire-arm is a United States Constitutional right granted from the right of Independence. So that people on liberty, may in fact defend that liberty.

    The Second Amendment allows all people the power to Bear-Arm meaning no just fire-arms, but all object which may be used as a weapon both for and against. Keep and Bear has two principle not one, keep one’s own arm, or show the arm used by others. Meaning a right to expose even a misuse of such things as words, credit, pitchforks, chemicals and Law as an arm, to expose any tyranny.
    A voter cannot legally vote to perform a theft of personal property, without endangering others to a criminal charge, even in such things guns, it must vote on how much currency as a group they are will to bid to buy the property for. The fact is that governing means reduce in an impartial fashion. The Second Amendment exposes a militia which in fact directs a state (A single point with two ends), often without self-value as described by free. Though the 2nd can be the argument to own a fire-arm it is at the same time an elaboration of the freedom of speech (talk without self-value). In a vague accusation of what a person may make a weapon and how people may become a weapon.

    Owning a fire-arm is not a public office so a religious test can be used by a governing force, so the question is how to build a reasonable test to be taken by the public and how to dispense the test.

  • The 2nd Amendment is outdated.

    The 2nd Amendment was created at a time when you could fire a single bullet in 1 minute 30 seconds. Now, there is a possibility with a M4A4 Assault Rifle to shoot 185 rounds in 1 minute 30 seconds. The Amendment has been criticized and widely regarded as "outdated". Gun technology has increased and it has become incredibly powerful, there has been no reason to hold a weapon against the state since the British colonisation - and therefore the 2nd Amendment has become outdated.

  • II advocate for an assault weapon ban. However, do you think there is some truth to the much argued 2nd amendment?

    The gun lobby uses the 2nd amendment to condone the sale of assault rifles, arguing that a future tyrannical government may one day be a threat to americans "freedom". Do you think there is some truth to this argument? I strongly disagree with the gun lobby's hysteria that is depravedly used to condone the sale of assault rifles. What do you think? Is it possible that a tyrannical government may use AI robots to wipe off what it deems obsolete....Or that a foreign government may one day overpower america's billion dollar military industrial complex, killing americans in a genocide similar to the native americans...

    Excuse my unedited grammar sentence structure punctuation run on

  • What is the need for a gun?

    "Everyone has the right to bear arms"- Well, I'm sorry, but I think everyone also has the right to not be shot for no reason. The number of instances an American is unreasonably shot and killed far outweighs the number of instances where a gun has been used to save a life (an exception are the police who DO have a right to bear arms). In our relatively peaceful modern times, one of all society's greatest challenges is to reduce violent crime and death associated with it. It's a no-brainer: heavily restrict gun ownership. Even gun advocates can't argue the fact that hundreds of precious lives could be potentially saved.

  • Guns should be allowed, but with heavy restrictions

    Everyone has a right to guns. However, the danger of guns calls for restrictions/guidelines for where it is allowed, so only certain areas should be allowed. Banning guns completely would be crazy, because lots of people have guns and treasure them, and they're defense weapons. But, allowing them everywhere would cause a much higher crime rate. The simple solution would just be to allow guns in certain places, but not allow them near places like offices, schools, etc.

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