Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban Act

  • Thread starter Swara
  • 176 comments
  • 14,012 views
6,077
United States
USA
swara96
Why don't we make this interesting. :) The national Public Forum (PF) debate topic for this month is what's written on the title. Each side can choose a Con/Pro side, and debate each other! :)

If not, then state what your thoughts are on the topic! I'm 2nd speaker, so pretty much all I do is write rebuttals to the opposing side. I will start.

Opponent claims: Crime was worse when the ban was in effect
My rebuttal: There is no concrete evidence to suggest and/or state that the crime rate was actually worse when the ban act was in effect. As a matter of fact, according to Time Magazine, “[Holmes’] weapon of choice was prohibited during the 10-year life of the 1994 federal assault-weapons ban.” Had the ban been in effect at the time of the shooting, 12 lives would have been saved, and it would have prevented 58 others from injury. Also, according to the New York Times, the guns that were used in the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting would have been banned if the Federal Assault Weapons Ban Act, saving 33 lives, and preventing and additional 23 from injury. Also, the Remington Model 870 shotgun used in the 2005 Red Lake Senior High shooting is also prohibited in the Ban act. These incidents, with numerous others, would have been prevented had the Federal Assault Weapons Ban been in effect at the time. So, it is flagrant that the crime rate was in fact worse when the ban was NOT in effect.


EDIT- maybe this thread can be moved to the Opinions/Current Events sub-forum.
 
The ban did essentially nothing.

Besides, what about the Second Amendment? I don't see anywhere in there that makes exception for "assault weapons."

Sure some people will attempt to say that only a "well-regulated" militia is allowed to keep and bear arms, but how does a well-regulated militia exist without an armed populace? A militia is not the National Guard or the military. It was a group of ordinary citizens. Another concern that arises from this is that the militia is essential to the security of freedom - or a free "state." If you let the Federal government "regulate" the militia, doesn't that effectively destroy the intended purpose of a militia or the Second Amendment - which is for the security of a free 'state.' I put state in quotes because it could refer to a political "state" such as Arizona, or it could refer to the state of being free - as in protecting freedom & the rights protected by the Constitution.

State Constitutions also include a gauruntee to keep and bear arms, therefore it is also a violation of Constitutional rights at the state level.

What happens is that these bans do not hurt the criminals, they hurt the law abiding individual. The government knows this, and it's an attempt to disarm the populace. Our Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in the Constitution for a reason. I do not think it should be removed or limited because of the fears of irrational idiots.

Guns are heavily controlled in Europe and Australia, but people seem to get hold of them and commit crimes with them. Look at Chicago. 82 murders and 37 people injured (I can look up a link to the article if anyone wants to read it). How does that happen if it's illegal to carry a gun outside one's home?

Look at a country like Switzerland. Male citizens (I think) are required to do military service and then are required to take their weapons home with them and train with them regularly for national defense. These aren't just .22s or hunting rifles, these are machine guns with selector switches and the works. Surprisingly, their crime rates are not out of control.

If guns are illegal, the criminals are still going to get them. If guns are completely removed from our society, criminals will find other things to use as a weapon to do what they want.

Guns are a cornerstone of American society as much as apple pie or baseball. If people don't like them, nobody's making them buy one. All I am saying as a gun owner is - Don't Tread On Me.

The carrying of weapons was illegal in that movie theater since they had a sign outside prohibiting it. The county in Colorado where this happened had a no-carry policy. Maybe if people in that theater were allowed to protect themselves, they would have had a fighting chance. It's especially interesting to see how it would have turned out considering some of these people who died were active military and would have been trained better than a citizen with a CC permit.

If people want to live in a world without assault weapons, there are plenty of states where they're illegal. Such as California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts... Rather than imposing their anti-gun values upon the rest of society.

That's just my two cents, and I hope we can keep this conversation civil and factual.
 
Last edited:
You think that if the guns that Holmes and Cho used were banned then they would not have gone on the rampage? :confused:

The AWB banned guns based on how scary they looked. It did absolutely nothing to stop violence.

Tell me how banning guns with pistol grips, telescoping stocks, and barrel shrouds will stop violence.
 
Last edited:
The ban did essentially nothing.

Besides, what about the Second Amendment? I don't see anywhere in there that makes exception for "assault weapons."


I just started writing for the case :)

All a 2nd speaker does is write rebuttals to potential claims said by the opponent.

According to readersupported.org, the Sikh Temple, Batman, and Arizona killings all use semi-automatic weapons, those that would have been banned if the Ban was in act.

Also, going back to your 2nd amendment point, the 2nd amendment 2nd amendment doesn't give you full access to ANY WEAPON. The 2nd amendment was appointed in 1791, whereas the first machine gun was invented in 1885, so the con can't really use the 2nd amendment point in their case.
 
The weapons must be appropriate for a militia. Those are some pretty serious weapons we're talking about.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

in·fringe/inˈfrinj/
Verb:
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Using the Second Amendment, it's easy to argue that civilians should have access to automatic firearms.
 
The weapons must be appropriate for a militia. Those are some pretty serious weapons we're talking about.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

in·fringe/inˈfrinj/
Verb:
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

Using the Second Amendment, it's easy to argue that civilians should have access to automatic firearms.


The 2nd Amendment was established in 1791, its main intention did not include semi-automatic weapons. The first machine gun was created in 1885, and the first SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearm was created in 1893. Clearly, the 2nd amendment does not apply.


Guys, this is getting interesting! I hope none of you guys take it personally or anything. :nervous:
 
No, the main intention was to arm citizens so they could stand up to their government. That includes any weapon necessary to accomplish this task. As of this day and age, it is impossible to argue that it does not include semi-automatic firearms at the very least.

Either way, what good would an Assault Weapon Ban do? You are yet to provide any good reasoning as to why it is necessary.

Also, I'd check out what hogger editted his post to.
 
No, the main intention was to arm citizens so they could stand up to their government. That includes any weapon necessary to accomplish this task. As of this day and age, it is impossible to argue that it does not include semi-automatic firearms at the very least.

Either way, what good would an Assault Weapon Ban do? You are yet to provide any good reasoning as to why it is necessary.

Do you have any statistics to prove saying that the 2nd amendment is for ANY gun?

As for your second point. Following the previous ban, the amount of assault weapons traced back to crime decreased by 66%. When including copycat weapons, this number stood at 45%. As of 2001, only 1.1% of weapons traced back to crime were found to be assault weapons named in the act. This is a sharp decline from 3.67%, the first year before the ban. (http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/on_target.pdf) Massachusetts currently has a permanent ban on assault weapons, signed into law by Mitt Romney. "In Massachusetts, firearms kill three out of 100,000 people each year, compared to national average of 10 out of 100,000." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/gun-control-laws_b_1730567.html)

Criminalizing the ownership of assault weapons dries up the supply, decreasing the ability for most potential criminals to gain access to such weapons. Furthermore, it decreases the risk of a citizen committing an atrocity because they have an assault weapon. While the black market may always exist, the simply rules of supply and demand will cause prices to increase, deterring certain criminals from buying assault weapons over cheaper and far less lethal firearms.

Bans on particular types of weapons tend to be more effective than all out gun bans. Rather than trying to stop all gun violence, the assault weapon ban attempted to stop certain guns from being used in such violence. As it's far easier to get one's hands on a legal firearm as opposed to an illegal assault rifle, the goal was largely successful.
 
I just started writing for the case :)

All a 2nd speaker does is write rebuttals to potential claims said by the opponent.

According to readersupported.org, the Sikh Temple, Batman, and Arizona killings all use semi-automatic weapons, those that would have been banned if the Ban was in act.

Also, going back to your 2nd amendment point, the 2nd amendment 2nd amendment doesn't give you full access to ANY WEAPON. The 2nd amendment was appointed in 1791, whereas the first machine gun was invented in 1885, so the con can't really use the 2nd amendment point in their case.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

-Second Amendment, United States Constitution


The DC v. Heller case and the McDonald v. Chicago case also upheld that the Second Amendment was an individual right, and that it included handguns, and that it was not just a collective right for the militia.

"In Heller and McDonald the U.S. Supreme Court supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which U.S. militias have historically been armed."


As to your point about machine guns, they are legal to own in most states in the United States, although it requires an ATF tax stamp, special registration and the local police have to sign off on it I believe. It's not like you can just walk into a gun shop and buy one and then walk out with it.


With regards to the types of arms people are allowed to have, that is only because a lot of idiots do not understand what the point of the Second Amendment was. A stop gap to keep the government from completely destroying your rights. Muskets were a military technology at the time of the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers didn't write "muskets" or specifically designate which arms people were allowed to have and it was for a good reason.

If the Second Amendment only protects muzzle loaders, does that then also mean that the First Amendment should only protect political speech against King George?


According to readersupported.org, the Sikh Temple, Batman, and Arizona killings all use semi-automatic weapons, those that would have been banned if the Ban was in act.

A lot of drunk drivers crash into and kill people using automobiles too. Should we ban those?
 
Last edited:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

-Second Amendment, United States Constitution


The DC v. Heller case and the McDonald v. Chicago case also upheld that the Second Amendment was an individual right, and that it included handguns, and that it was not just a collective right for the militia.

"In Heller and McDonald the U.S. Supreme Court supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which U.S. militias have historically been armed."

Right, but don't you agree that when the 2nd Amendment was established, the people behind it did not have any idea what a semi-automatic weapon and a machine gun were?
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

-Second Amendment, United States Constitution


The DC v. Heller case and the McDonald v. Chicago case also upheld that the Second Amendment was an individual right, and that it included handguns, and that it was not just a collective right for the militia.

"In Heller and McDonald the U.S. Supreme Court supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which U.S. militias have historically been armed."


As to your point about machine guns, they are legal to own in most states in the United States, although it requires an ATF tax stamp, special registration and the local police have to sign off on it I believe. It's not like you can just walk into a gun shop and buy one and then walk out with it.


With regards to the types of arms people are allowed to have, that is only because a lot of idiots do not understand what the point of the Second Amendment was. A stop gap to keep the government from completely destroying your rights. Muskets were a military technology at the time of the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers didn't write "muskets" or specifically designate which arms people were allowed to have and it was for a good reason.

If the Second Amendment only protects muzzle loaders, does that then also mean that the First Amendment should only protect political speech against King George?




A lot of drunk drivers crash into and kill people using automobiles too. Should we ban those?

Your automobile point is flawed. You cannot compare both the two, people use guns to commit massacres compared to cars. Please show a statistic where cars are way more prominent and more of a threat to killing people than with guns.

As for your 2nd Amendment point, the main "reason" of the 2nd Amendment is self-defense for citizens, not wide bloodshed like the VT shooting.

According to USConstitution.net, these were the main points as per the 2nd Invasion. I don't see "massacres" there. Do you?
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.
 
Last edited:
Right, but don't you agree that when the 2nd Amendment was established, the people behind it did not have any idea what a semi-automatic weapon and a machine gun were?

The fact that the Second Amendment was written in broad language only shows that the Founding Fathers intended for it to protect more than just muskets. They didn't specifically write muskets or cannons, they wrote "arms," which has been interpreted time and time again by the courts to be firearms.

They would have been idiots if they didn't realize society would advance.
 
Right, but don't you agree that when the 2nd Amendment was established, the people behind it did not have any idea what a semi-automatic weapon and a machine gun were?

How could they have? That's making an argument saying that they didn't know what was going to happen after they had died.

As Hogger said, the Amendment was undoubtedly written in order to cover future weapons.
 
Your automobile point is flawed. You cannot compare both the two, people use guns to commit massacres compared to cars. Please show a statistic where cars are way more prominent and more of a threat to killing people than with guns.

Right here.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909


I don't even see firearms listed on there.



As for using guns to commit murder, that's like saying a hammer is designed for whacking people over the head. A gun is a tool for self defense, or to put food on the table, or for sport. It is not designed for murder. There is a difference between self defense and murder that I think some people don't understand.
 
Right here.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909


I don't even see firearms listed on there.


Check my edited post.
 
Your automobile point is flawed. You cannot compare both the two, people use guns to commit massacres compared to cars. Please show a statistic where cars are way more prominent and more of a threat to killing people than with guns.

As for your 2nd Amendment point, the main "reason" of the 2nd Amendment is self-defense for citizens, not wide bloodshed like the VT shooting.

According to USConstitution.net, these were the main points as per the 2nd Invasion. I don't see "massacres" there. Do you?
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Right, that's the main reason for the 2nd Amendment, but unless you set up lie-detectors and Homeland Security at every single gun-shop there is no way that this ban can be effective (and even that way will STILL be ineffective).
 
According to USConstitution.net, these were the main points as per the 2nd Invasion. I don't see "massacres" there. Do you?
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Those are reasons for gun ownership. But a gun is not designed for murder. That's the point I was making.

Why do politicians insist their bodyguards be armed, but not you and me?

Recall the Rodney King riots in that anti-gun city of Los Angeles. Every major news
network carried footage of Korean storeowners sitting on the roofs of their stores, armed with
“assault weapons.” Those were the stores that did not get burned to the ground, and those
were the people that were not dragged into the street and beaten by rioters. “You can’t get
around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is
damaging to the [gun control] movement.”
 
Last edited:
How do you like this, guys? Just thought it would be a fun thing to do. :)

regarding your point, Blitz. There are simply no reasons why an average citizen needs access to assault weapons. Such weapons are meant for military use, not for recreation or self-defense. The inherent danger associated with such weapons is a justifiable reason to affirm the resolution. They are unnecessary, they are designed explicitly for military purposes, and they have a huge potential for additional civilian casualties, when compared to normal firearms.

Also, In 2004, Mitt Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons and said they "have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

If a gun is not designed for murder like you stated, then why would many people use it for killing? Why do you think that assault rifles were made? They were made during World War I, and the main reason they were manufactured is for killing.

Assault weapons ISN'T NECESSARY for civilians! There is no reason as to why a civilian needs one.
 
Had the ban been in effect at the time of the shooting, 12 lives would have been saved, and it would have prevented 58 others from injury.
That's quite a statement. Now you have to prove that this would have been the case.

Also, according to the New York Times, the guns that were used in the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting would have been banned if the Federal Assault Weapons Ban Act, saving 33 lives, and preventing and additional 23 from injury.
Again, you need to explain to us logically how a law will prevent law-breakers from breaking it. They're called criminals for a reason. If it wasn't this guy then it would have been somebody else - people kill people every single day.

Also, the Remington Model 870 shotgun used in the 2005 Red Lake Senior High shooting is also prohibited in the Ban act. These incidents, with numerous others, would have been prevented had the Federal Assault Weapons Ban been in effect at the time. So, it is flagrant that the crime rate was in fact worse when the ban was NOT in effect.
By citing three rare occurrences you're suggesting that the crime rate for the entire country would have been lower had these there things not happened? Interesting. My rebuttal:



Clearly, we should ban ammonium nitrate (a farming fetilizer), nitromethane (a fuel for race cars), along with various other pedestrian materials, heavy-duty pickup trucks, and of course the renting of parking spaces, because all those things were used in 1995 to kill 111 people. Click the images for the Wiki articles.



Seems logical that we should ban flying lessons, except that would mean no future pilots. But then, that wouldn't be a problem if we also ban commercial air travel. Despite having banned flight training, there are already people with pilot's licenses and so we should ban all their small non-commercial planes because they've also been crashed into buildings as terrorist attacks. If you really want to get to the root of this problem, however, you need to ban immigration. That'll do it.



If only Chevy Caprices were illegal. If only poking holes in the truck and driving around were illegal. If only semi-automatic assault rifles were illegal (they were, as this happened in 2002). Banning the sale of assault rifles is pretty dumb given the fact that thousands of people already owned them before the ban went into effect.

I've demonstrated at least three points to you here. First, that banning assault rifles literally does nothing to prevent their use in heinous crimes. Second, when assault rifles are illegal then people might just use a 600,000 pound airliner to kill people - decidedly more effective. Third, if you want to ban things that people could do bad things with ten you'll literally have to ban everything. Right now in the UK they're having a real problem with knives - everybody is getting stabbed. They're trying to ban knives, as if they expect everyone to grow their fingernails and cut a steak that way.

Right, but don't you agree that when the 2nd Amendment was established, the people behind it did not have any idea what a semi-automatic weapon and a machine gun were?
They knew what cannons and grapeshot were. The Constitution doesn't say anything about "except cannons with grapeshot, effective at mowing down lines of people at once." The document says "arms". You know, weapons. It doesn't say what kind of weapons. Based on the general intention of the document, which is to limit government power and protect the rights of the people, the only consistent way to interpret "arms" is to mean everything.
 
Last edited:
How do you like this, guys? Just thought it would be a fun thing to do. :)

regarding your point, Blitz. There are simply no reasons why an average citizen needs access to assault weapons. Such weapons are meant for military use, not for recreation or self-defense. The inherent danger associated with such weapons is a justifiable reason to affirm the resolution. They are unnecessary, they are designed explicitly for military purposes, and they have a huge potential for additional civilian casualties, when compared to normal firearms.

Also, In 2004, Mitt Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons and said they "have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

The problem is that the ban WON'T cut down on this in the foreseeable future because there needs to be compliance from everyone. If only one shop fails to comply this ban won't serve much purpose.
 
How do you like this, guys? Just thought it would be a fun thing to do. :)

regarding your point, Blitz. There are simply no reasons why an average citizen needs access to assault weapons. Such weapons are meant for military use, not for recreation or self-defense. The inherent danger associated with such weapons is a justifiable reason to affirm the resolution. They are unnecessary, they are designed explicitly for military purposes, and they have a huge potential for additional civilian casualties, when compared to normal firearms.


There are many reasons people prefer to use these firearms:
• They are easy to operate
• They are very reliable in outdoor conditions (backpacking, hunting, etc.)
• They are accurate
• They are good for recreational and competitive target shooting
• They have value in many self-defense situations

There are many sports in which these firearms are required:
• Hunters use these firearms (especially for wild boar hunting in the south)
• Three-gun target matches
• Camp Perry competitions, especially the Service Rifle events
• DCM/CMP competitions
• Bodyguard simulations

Ours is a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs



Also, In 2004, Mitt Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons and said they "have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

Which is exactly why I will not give my support to Mitt Romney and instead will give it to Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, whomever becomes the candidate for the Libertarian Party. People say it's throwing your vote away, but I would much rather vote my conscience than vote against somebody.
 
Anyone want to be on the Pro side now? I'm the only Pro person here, but we can switch if we want. Remember, it's Pro vs. Con, so you have to be ready to switch sides.
 
Why the hell would anybody want to support a side which is morally wrong, unconstitutional, and has tons of evidence stacked against it? These are serious issues that affect all of us and I see no room for playing games with right and wrong.
 
Why the hell would anybody want to support a side which is morally wrong, unconstitutional, and has tons of evidence stacked against it? These are serious issues that affect all of us and I see no room for playing games with right and wrong.

This is a debate, you have to be flexible with both sides. No personal preference. I agree with Con personally, but if I'm pro, I can't say that.
 
This is a debate, you have to be flexible with both sides. No personal preference. I agree with Con personally, but if I'm pro, I can't say that.

The pro-side is going to be even more difficult to argue for, but perhaps one could use parallel views as to how changes in security have altered potential terror attacks.
 
As Hogger said, the Amendment was undoubtedly written in order to cover future weapons.

I would debate that, since something that would cause excessive and widespread havoc would not be permitted; ownership of certain types of explosives or missiles would probably get you a knock on the door from someone a little more than the local constable. Assault weapons kind serve little to no purpose other than to create widespread havoc; but on the other hand, drawing an arbitrary line to ban these types of weapons is putting the cart in front of the horse...a would-be violator of this rule would likely modify the stock and barrel (or other parts, I'm not an expert) to meet whatever requirements or specification desired. And if you really want to make a statistical analysis, whether one dead or twenty is still a tragic affair.

There are things that our Founding Fathers patently could not have possibly perceived, and to hold every detail of the Constitution as completely ironclad and inviolable could have potential implications if not maintained; without going into hyperbole, there's been greater freedoms allowed by granting certain amendments, and sections (notably in the Preamble) have been modified and redacted quite a bit over the years.

I don't think there's an easy solution; it seems like feel-good legislation. People will find a way to do as they please, sadly...even heinous crimes.
 
I would debate that, since something that would cause excessive and widespread havoc would not be permitted; ownership of certain types of explosives or missiles would probably get you a knock on the door from someone a little more than the local constable. Assault weapons kind serve little to no purpose other than to create widespread havoc; but on the other hand, drawing an arbitrary line to ban these types of weapons is putting the cart in front of the horse...a would-be violator of this rule would likely modify the stock and barrel (or other parts, I'm not an expert) to meet whatever requirements or specification desired. And if you really want to make a statistical analysis, whether one dead or twenty is still a tragic affair.

There are things that our Founding Fathers patently could not have possibly perceived, and to hold every detail of the Constitution as completely ironclad and inviolable could have potential implications if not maintained; without going into hyperbole, there's been greater freedoms allowed by granting certain amendments, and sections (notably in the Preamble) have been modified and redacted quite a bit over the years.

I don't think there's an easy solution; it seems like feel-good legislation. People will find a way to do as they please, sadly...even heinous crimes.
I failed to mention any of this prior but this is a bigger reason. The guns on their own do no damage to people. If a rational person has the gun (or irrational, if you are viewing it from the perspective of the rational use of the gun is to shoot other people) then there is a less chance of a "widespread havoc". However, if an irrational (or rational, again, depending on viewpoint) person has the gun then there is a problem. Its difficult though to state both sides clearly without a full definition of an "assault weapon" as well. A machete could be used as a weapon to assault others and the same exact argument would be made.
 
Pupik
Assault weapons kind serve little to no purpose other than to create widespread havoc.

There are things that our Founding Fathers patently could not have possibly perceived
The Founding Fathers didnt protect our right to arms because they thought shooting and hunting was fun. They didn't believe that we should only be allowed weapons necessary to have fun or hunt and nothing more.

They protected our right to own weapons so we could defend ourself from an oppressive government. This country was born from an oppressive regime which had access to weapons and defenses that the people did not. The Founders never wanted it to happen again, less the people of this country not be able to defend themselves when the government oversteps its bounds. They put no limits on the weapons we can possess; because there is no limit to what a powerful government can possess. WE are the limit, and to maintain that status we must be able to defend that status.
 
The ban did essentially nothing.

Besides, what about the Second Amendment? I don't see anywhere in there that makes exception for "assault weapons."

When was this amendment written?
When it back when women had no right to vote?
When a women was raped and no one cared as no one listens to women?
Besides, if their was this kind of gun issue before this amendment was written I am sure it would not have been written in the manner it is today.

Things change, if i recall that was made to protect one self from the british, since that is no longer the case it should be changed.

Plus as an American you should know you have lost your first amendment which is "Freedom of Speech"

Guns are heavily controlled in Australia, but people seem to get hold of them and commit crimes with them.

The only ones that have them are biker gangs, drug dealers and a few idiots.
But we do not have a school shooting, shopping center shooting or any other kind of shooting that often.

The county in Colorado where this happened had a no-carry policy. Maybe if people in that theater were allowed to protect themselves, they would have had a fighting chance

Yeah a fighting chance against a guy clad in full body armour with tear gas

Due to this Second Amendment he as able to get that much ammo that not only could help a small army, but seems down right insane.

Why does one need to stock pile weapons and ammo?
Because they are either looking for a fight or are scared some thing(like the cops)

Here is another case of the gun issue.
Golfer damages a window, did he deserve to get shot?
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8529603/us-golfer-shot-after-ball-smashes-window
 
Back