Register

Do you think the government should give every tax payer an Assault Weapon?

Q&A Home   >  Dating & Relationships
Ask Question

Asked By: Hiatt1967 46-50, M  2 months ago

Is This A Good Question? (5)

Add an Answer to "Do you think the government should give every tax payer an Assault Weapon?"

Send me an email when there are new answers to this question

    Best Answer (Chosen by Voting):

    wander099 - 22-25 years old - female

    Posted by wander099 Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:34AM

    First of all, I think that only the police and military should have weapons and that the second amendment has been completely misunderstood. It isn't the right to bear arms it is the right to bear arms in an organized militia in defence of the state. That is, it is obsolete now that there is a federal army and a national guard. And even if you do allow militias (and I don't think you should), it does not equate to a personal right to have weapons. And BTW, it is incredibly hypocritical of some states to allow firearms and to ban nun chucks and other such weapons. Either it is a right to bear arms or not. And if nun chucks are so dangerous, then surely assault weapons and most other firearms should be banned as well as nun chucks are far less dangerous.

    Second, if you are going to allow citizens to bear arms for self-defence, it shouldn't include assault rifles as the only purpose of such weapons is mass killing given their firing rate. So those should remain banned nationally.

    Third, why the hell should the government be handing out weapons at all, nevermind assault weapons? Even if there is the right, how does that translate to the government using tax money to pay for a gun for every single person who pays taxes? First of all, the money would be better spent elsewhere - paying down the debt might be an excellent idea right now. Second of all, I thought most gun nuts were Republicans, so don't you people believe in small government, i.e. no handouts at all? So why not just cut the amount the gun would cost out of the taxes collected? The people who would actually want the guns, if they actually had enough brain cells to figure it out, would likely object to getting them from the government. Third, not everyone would desire a gun, some people object to them on moral principles or would not want them for other reasons (children in the home etc.), so why give them out at all?

    In other words, your idea is moronic for a plethora of reasons.

    [ Reply ] | Like (4)

  1. RavenmoonCanada - 36-40 years old - female

    Reply by RavenmoonCanada Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46AM

    Here Here

    Like (1)

  2. wander099 - 22-25 years old - female

    Reply by wander099 Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:09PM

    I know the government is not doing it, but the fact that this person asked the question implies that they think some people would say yes. Oh, and if you look at this person's other activity on this site, I suspect they might be that sort of person themselves. And here's where I find your interpretation to be wrong - people who interpret the second amendment that way want a literal interpretation of the constitution elsewhere (for example when it comes to denying rights to minorities or to gay people or to women or to non-Christians), but not here. Here we can read all sorts of things into the wording because Americans just gotta have their guns. They do the exact same thing with church and state both explicitly and implicitly, but that is a separate issue. Literal interpretation here, interpretation based on intent there. No. You cannot do that. You either adopt an intent based view or you don't. And if you adopt an intent based view I want to see some evidence for the fact that it was intended to protect you from the government. And you seriously want to defend the position that people should be allowed to have any weapons they want on the basis of self defence? Because that is where your position takes you and that will lead to coups against governments and not just in self-defence either. You do sound bonkers... You are one of those crazy people with a basement full of guns and **** aren't you? I am so ******* glad I am Canadian - we don't allow that **** here.

    Like (1)

    3 more replies

10 Answers to "Do you think the government should give every tax payer an Assault Weapon?"

  1. onwayout - 41-45 years old - female

    Posted by onwayout Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:34AM

    No. I don't think the answer to this world's problems are in giving every citizen an assault weapon. I have a hard enough time understanding the logic of this world, but adding guns into the mix, I just don't get it. This world just leaves me in an endless state of confusion.

    Like (2)

  2. RavenmoonCanada - 36-40 years old - female

    Posted by RavenmoonCanada Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:31AM

    This just HAS to be a question posed by an American. omg. So much for world peace.

    Like (2)

  3. Hiatt1967 - male

    Reply by Hiatt1967 Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:35AM

    Hay dumb azz you want world peace leave Israel alone and let them live on the land the only living God gave them. Their is your answer to world peace.

    Like (1)

  4. peza - male

    Reply by peza Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:39AM

    God gave them ****.

    Like (1)

    2 more replies
  5. madasalizard - 22-25 years old - male

    Posted by madasalizard Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:30AM

    No, I think that could be the most stupid idea ever.

    Like (2)

  6. rickibrat2 - 61-65 years old - male

    Posted by rickibrat2 Mar 27th, 2013 at 7:17PM

    I already pay for a stamp for my weapon why a tax let's just tax the riches income from off short accounts.

    Like (1)

  7. iwantoutofhere - 22-25 years old - female

    Posted by iwantoutofhere Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:42AM

    Lol. No. Not every person needs weapons around particularly individuals with PPD.

    Like (1)

  8. Indie42 - 46-50 years old - female

    Posted by Indie42 Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:25AM

    Seeing as how they are stockpiling ammo, perhaps they should. What are they doing that for anyway?

    Like (1)

  9. LZPsychoJoZ - 31-35 years old - male

    Posted by LZPsychoJoZ Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:24AM

    Why do you need to shoot 30 bullets in 4 seconds?
    A handgun or shotgun to protect your home is one thing but a fully automatic is pointless and unnecessary.

    Like (1)

  10. Hiatt1967 - male

    Reply by Hiatt1967 Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:25AM

    lol i do not no.

    Like (1)

  11. PoetLover - 31-35 years old - male

    Reply by PoetLover Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:29AM

    No, normal person has a full auto assault weapon... I own a few, and they're all semi auto. They're just made to look cosmetically similar. For example the AR-15 looks like the full auto version that the military uses, but they use the M16... The AR is just the civilian version of it, and does not come in full auto.

    Like (1)

    1 more reply
  12. peza - 46-50 years old - male

    Posted by peza Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:22AM

    And a hand grenade.

    Like (1)

  13. PoetLover - 31-35 years old - male

    Posted by PoetLover Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:22AM

    The government should have as much power as is provided by the constitution, not more, not less.

    Like (1)

  14. PoetLover - 31-35 years old - male

    Reply by PoetLover Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:33AM

    If you had a couple of guards standing there with assault riffles, probably a very long time.... If you want to keep the school gun free zones, and remove the weapons from the law abiding that would protect others... Not very long.

    Like (1)

Ask A Question

Related Questions to Do you think the government should give every tax payer an Assault Weapon?

Answers to questions are provided for entertainment purposes only. You should never use answers to questions provided here to replace professional advice, such as from a doctor or lawyer. This page is for providing answers to the question "Do you think the government should give every tax payer an Assault Weapon?"