No! Only crazies own assault rifles.
No, they are too expensive!
No, no need to.
Yes, for self defense
Yes, for recreation and sport
Yes, to perform my patriotic duty if the nation is invaded
Yes, because it's my constiutional right
Yes, because I'm one of the CRAZIES!!! hahahahaha
Constitutional Right my ass, when the Constitution was written we didn't have Assault Riffles. Everybody had guns because they hunted for their food, they didn't have high tech homes where they could protect themselves, and they did not live in an age where they could just fire off a nuke to protect themselves. Times have changed, I'm not saying that gun laws would prevent these shootings, but what I am saying is that not having these laws in place gives people a more easy means of doing so. If somebody were to obtain Assault Riffles illegally, we know that the only thing that can be done is to step up enforcement, there is no question whether if we had a law in place would it have stopped this event. Nobody needs an Assault Riffle for protection, and if you do, then you have bigger problems on your hands.
Run your own nation, play Cybernations."Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
- Mark Twain
Man, I give up, I have come to realize there is far too much ignorance in this thread. And after all the ignorant talking points are shown to be factually incorrect, along comes a new person spouting off the same BS. It's really pointless. Obviously education is not a priority in many.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
Let me state my bias first: I have never even fired a gun and I wish 99% of the people who owned them did not. I seriously envy countries where guns are so uncommon, even the cops don't usually carry them. That said, I understand gun-control types like myself lost the constitutional debate and now must accept a country in which gun ownership (should be) virtually uncontrolled.
But as to assault weapons, I think the slippery slope is not as to other guns but as to other weapons. If these are legal, why not other means of mass destruction?
But part 2...what IS an assault weapon? I can put a pistol grip on my standard 20 gauge shotgun and I have just made it an 'assault weapon'. I can put a tactical rail system that allows me to attach a flashlight, grip, laser sight, etc and now my standard weapon has become an "assault weapon." Its silly but there it is.
I don't know if you are quoting from the constitution or from DC v. Heller. Either way, I agree: the gun rights of Americans have been established and if we are to claim to live by the rule of law, we have to accept them.People may not like it, but that is undeniable. Bill of individual rights...the need for a free citizenry and standing militias (US Code clearly defines the organized and unorganized militia) those rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED by the government. Thats not interpretation...thats verbatim.
Most laws have these kinds of "bright line" problems. When describing the difference between what is legal and what is prohibited, some technicality or other seems arbitrary. Yet we need and want such laws and we abide by them, most of us. The mere fact that a law has to describe what is prohibited does not seem to me enough reason to claim it is foolish.But part 2...what IS an assault weapon? I can put a pistol grip on my standard 20 gauge shotgun and I have just made it an 'assault weapon'. I can put a tactical rail system that allows me to attach a flashlight, grip, laser sight, etc and now my standard weapon has become an "assault weapon." Its silly but there it is.
I can tell you that full auto can be classified as "waste fire" due to the rideup on those particular guns, *if* you land a shot in full auto it's a matter of statistics and not accuracy. Burst fire is more accurate but takes practice to master anticipating the rideup. The reason for full auto is suppression fire, or to better explain it's to keep opposing forces heads down so they can be flanked. That said an automatic isn't a WMD by any stretch, their effective range is less than 750 yards typically and are best served at 250yd or less. Not saying a marksman can't hit anything at around 750 but it's not within the weapon's effective zone.
There are mounted machine guns that can tear dwellings apart, but it's a stabilization and rate of fire attribute. They all fire similar rounds, most LMGs and MGs fire the 7.62 Nato round which is a "hot round" which is around 1/3cm larger than the .308 which is among the most common hunting rounds in the U.S. The thing about LMGs or "light" machine guns is that they are mobile but suffer from jamming and the same innacuracies as assault rifles and mounted machine guns do no one any good in an all out assault due to weight and immobility. I guess my point is that automatics aren't really all that scary when you learn their capabilities, they have just as many pluses as minuses and aren't really all that conducive to the most common criminal activity and they are far from super weapons.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.