Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device
Assault Weapon: ....An automatic or semi-automatic weapon that holds 30 or more rounds of ammunition and is generally understood to fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. There is no technical military definition of assault weapon other than that referring to a weapon used in a military operation. The U.S. Army does define the term assault rifle as a short, compact, selective-fire weapon that fires a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.......www.thefreedictionary.com/Assault+Weapon Do ordinary citizens need assault weapons to protect themselves from intruders? What do you think?
goodogstay goodogstay 46-50, M 13 Answers Jan 22, 2013 in Politics

Your Response

Cancel

I think they absolutely should be. They're overkill for basic self-defense, useless for hunting, as stated. And anyone who thinks they need them in order to try to overthrow the government is basically a domestic terrorist, who doesn't need ANY weapons---they should be in jail.

Best Answer

...that's an excellent point. How the hell do they get away with that argument? "You can't take my gun, I might want to overthrow the government someday".

Best Answer

Another attempt to thwart first Amendment rights ? I'll have to block you then.

Best Answer

And Voting and Law Enforcement has nothing to do with civilians carrying assault weapons to use against the government.

Best Answer

Steve, it's the National Defense Authorisation Act. It's not new, but currently there are provisions to investigate and detain individuals suspected of terrorism, including citizens. Timothy McVeigh, Nidal Malik Hasan (Ft Hood), Wade Michael Page (Oak Creek), for example.

Best Answer
1 More Response

Yes.

Best Answer

no reasonable person can rationally defend the possession of assault weapons by the average citizen. Not useful for hunting, target shooting, etc., Only use is for killing humans, and killing them in large numbers.

Best Answer

Of course. All this bullshit about the constitution-people need to think of what the weapons were at that time. And isn't it interesting that now there is a big hullabaloo about it when we have our first black president? What about in the past when we had old white men as president, and they were calling for it?

Best Answer

You raise some good points.

Best Answer

Absolutely!!

Best Answer

I don't know. I know the Constitution allows us to have weapons. I thought that was in order that if our country ever tried to change by violence, the government as it stands, we could fight back. This is a hard question. Obviously, I do not think mentally unstable persons should not get their hands on any weapon, big or small. But, how do we do that?

Best Answer

I agree that military spec rifles with muzzle velocities of 3,000 fps or more should be banned. There is no reason for people to own these. But then, while the likes of a M107, and similar single-shot 50 caliber rifles, are not assault rifles, having these in the hands of anybody outside the military truly scares me.<br />
<br />
I have hunted with a .30-06, an old military round, but prefer the lower velocity .30-30, but then, with rifles like that, one needs to know and trust the other hunters in the area. So, there are military rounds that are useful for hunting deer or other bigger game.

Best Answer

NOPE!!! If we continually remove items and ignore individual responsibility, what's the point!<br />
<br />
More people die annually from Drunk drivers, should we ban cars or alcohol?

Best Answer

There will ALWAYS be tragedies! Unfortunately. I'm all for control, clip size changes, but banning will do nothing because the idiots who are capable of doing these things will ALWAYS find what they need to carry out their plans! U can't prevent this!

Best Answer

btw, I don't own one gun!

Best Answer

Adjusted for rates of ownership? Or is that one of those "you're more likely to be hit by a car than be eaten by a shark" type "statistics"?

Best Answer

This might help somewhat! Stats are just that, as I've stated, idiot will always find a way regardless of WHAT you ban.

Best Answer

I agree with you on prevention but regardless, there will always be assault rifles, and I would rather control rather than not know what is out there. better control. tougher laws for access.

Best Answer

Here in America, for the most part, people are really slow at allowing Goverment in any fashion dictate our liberties. I personally would not be effected by any ban or law but I disagree with the appearance most are placing on banning assault rifles, as if it is the save all solution. This will only mean outlaws will have assault rifles and law abiding people who jump through every hoop and pay every fee will not. Again we completely remove from any responsibility and say lets just ban! Which is why I bring up Alcohol and drunk drivers. why have we not banned alcohol? because it would not prevent anything.

Best Answer

Yes, I totally agree that its rooted deeply here. Of course, we are a much younger nation. I think also which is not stated or shown much publically is that most politicians won't even touch gun laws since many of them are huge supporters. Obama, has only recently made statement regarding gun laws, but prior to this last tragedy, nothing. I believe gun laws within politics here is viewed as polititcal suicide. Needless to say, I think the end result is what we all are striving for, which is exactly what you've stated. Less of our family and friends being injured or killed.

Best Answer
4 More Responses

Not banned; controlled.

Best Answer

Related Questions