|
Our forefathers could not have imagined assault weapons when this amendment was written. No one but the military needs these weapons.
REPLY
|
|
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes:
What is 'and for other purposes'?
REPLY
|
|
What's the argument for voting "No"? Just a philosophical point about one's right to have these weapons?
REPLY
|
|
The 2nd amendment guarantees US citizens the right to bear arms in defiance of tyranny. I don't support violence as a method of protest, but looking at the amount of freedoms that have been trampled by the current administration (that's right, I'm not a blind Neo-Con gun-nut) I could see a future where armed insurrection is our only recourse.
REPLY
|
|
The right to bear arms cannot be curtailed, but weapons such as assult weapons need to be under control.
REPLY
|
|
"No one but the military needs these weapons" Local law enforcement would disagree with you. With the rising use of SWAT teams for the increasing amount of drug raids performed in this country, police militarization is becoming very common. Towns of perhaps 10,000 people nowadays have SWAT teams. This also means regular law enforcement officers are being armed with AR-15s. In my home town of Boise, Idaho, the BPD just recently purchased dozens of AR-15s at military wholesale price, aka, next to nothing. The crime here is VERY low, and the reason for this is, Idahoans have lots of guns plain and simple. You don't break into someones house because you'll likely meet the barrel of a large gun. You don't rob a bank because someone is carrying concealed. Richard Poe's book: "Seven Myths about Gun Control" is a very good read I'd recommend to anyone interested in researching the topic.
REPLY
|
|
Americans are not going to rebel against their government with guns. We've moved beyond the point of a government using guns to dictate its will to its citizens.
People nowadays are more afraid of paying a speeding ticket than of Uncle Sam barging into your house and threatening you with a gun to slow down.
The purpose of guns in a citizen's hands is for self-defense. I reserve the right to shoot someone in the knees if he tries to mug me or busts into my apartment. I don't need an automatic rifle to defend myself against a thug. I can aim a pistol quite well, thank you very much.
REPLY
|
|
Arguing against an assault weapons ban on the grounds that "criminals will have them anyway" is akin to arguing against a ban on private possession of weaponized anthrax (or any manner of Atomic/Bio/Chemical or other conventional arm) on the same grounds.
Meanwhile, arguing that illegalizing them leaves law abiding citizens defenseless is little different, and more to the point, a red herring. If the problem is that criminals have them, the solution is to remove them from criminals - the legal status of the weapons is not the issue, the crime is. If - as many, including myself, would argue - a ban on them helps to remove them from the hands of those who would commit crimes, then that is indeed a partial solution.
REPLY
|
|
I voted no as well - as much as I deplore gun violence, this just makes legal ownership of higher end rifles illegal. Criminals don't really care anyway, and in the countries that have restricted gun ownership (England, Australia), violent crime in general, and violent crime WITH Guns has actually gone up. Japan on the other hand has very little violence despite strict gun laws, but then again, so does Switzerland, despite having the most machine guns per capita in the world (There is a full auto assault rifle in most households, as all males in the reserves and active military are required to keep it at home, with a small cache of ammo). So - I would rather side with the constitution, since theres no conclusive evidence that gun control works, and some evidence that suggests it does not and in some cases, makes things worse.
REPLY
|
|
|
|
A gun is a gun no matter how much or how fast it can project a bullet at a human being. If we teach responsibility and kindness to our children, grandchildren, friends, family and people we come in contact with, then there would not be a need for violence. Communication is how things get done, not violence. If I were to physically punish my daughter for something she doesn't understand instead of talking to her and taking the time to teach her about her feelings, responsibility and respect for other people then she would think that violence is what is right, instead of having a understanding of what humanity and being a citizen in our society is all about.
REPLY
|
|
The only other reason to ban a weapon is to raise the prices on the black market.
REPLY
|
|
I once was for banning assault rifles and having very strict gun laws. But I guess with age comes wisdom and certain epiphany's regarding the real world. Bad guys will be bad guys and will continue to get guns whether something on a piece of paper says they can or cannot. The government has the ability to control assault rifles, why can't we? Why must the 'protector' also opress? If you love and trust your people, then you will allow them the right to defend themselves from the dangers that are in the world.
I vote No.
REPLY
|