Should assault weapons be allowed in the United States as a means of allowing individuals to defend themselves?

  • I don't see why not.

    Anything that could be used for assault could technically be classified as an assault weapon but that's for another discussion. I don't see why people shouldn't have assault weapons, I mean just because it looks like it belongs in the army (I'm talking about rifles, and pistols) doesn't mean that it can't be in the home. Of course this discussion would go much more smoothly if the gun control lobby would stop making people think of fully automatic AKs when they hear assault weapon, and the NRA leadership would shut its trap and stop influencing the government with money. Instead of imposing new laws, why doesn't anybody try and start a campaign of consistently teaching gun safety and care to kids, before Call of Duty does, then wouldn't gun accidents go down? Has nobody tried this yet? I can count the number of times I've been taught about gun safety by the police or some other public entity on one hand.

  • Yes, they are arms.

    Yes, assault weapons should be allowed in the United States as a means of allowing individuals to defend themselves, because the Second Amendment says that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. It is a sliding scale to say that certain types of arms do not count. All arms should be legal.

  • Assault weapons can be allowed only under certain conditions

    Before allowing assault weapons in the United States to be used as a means for individuals to protect and defend themselves, first these individuals should be able to pass a psychological and personal tests that proves they are in a healthy position to be able to have an ownership of a weapon.

  • They are overkill

    If someone is attacking your house, do you need to have a machine gun to defend yourself? A handgun will kill someone just as easily, and it's easier to use. If there's a shooter, you're more likely to kill innocent people waving your death spewer around, aiming for the shooter. A handgun works just as well and is less dangerous to innocent bystanders.

  • No, assault weapons should not be allowed as a means of self defense.

    No, assault weapons should not be allowed as a means of self defense. This argument for assault weapons is illogical. It is proven that a weapon like a revolver would make a much better weapon for self defense because it requires so little maintenance, it can still be fired even after years of not being used, where an assault weapon can jam up if it is not regularly cleaned and maintained.

  • Takes Just One Bullet to Kill Someone

    Owning firearms is a means for people to defend themselves and their homes. It just takes one bullet to kill someone, not a machine gun with 200 rounds per minute. Assault weapons are owned by the military for reason as a means to attack mass amounts of people trying to kill you. In contemporary society, one or two isolated people will try to get in your home to take something, not an entire army. Ordinary citizens don't need assault weapons to defend the country against invaders--that's why we have the Department of Defense. When the Founding Fathers wanted a "state regulated militia", it was to provide for the common defense if America is invaded. However, that's not a problem today as the armed forces are the best in the world and no one in their right minds would invade the United States unless society complete breaks down.

  • Assault weapons should not be allowed in the United States.

    There is no reason that an individual would need a military type assault weapon to protect themselves. These are dangerous weapons that were designed for use in combat. The use of this kind of a weapon by an untrained person in a civilian setting would lead to mass casualties of bystanders.

  • Defense has nothing to do with assault.

    Well, consider that they're not called defense weapons. They're assault weapons. They're offensive, in every single sense of the word. And from what we've seen in Colorado and New England recently, they can be used in situations that are plain murderous. The general public does not need assault weapons in their hands.

  • Assault weapons have no legitimate self-defense purpose

    I do not believe that assault weapons should be allowed in the US for self-defense purposes. They were created by their manufacturers for military purposes only. In a nutshell, they are designed to kill a lot of people quickly. This has zero application in hunting or self-defense. Handguns are in my opinion a more than adequate weapon for people to defend themselves.

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