+- Twitist Forums (http://twitist.com)
+-- Forum: General Social Media & Marketing Forums (/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: General Social Media questions (/forum-9.html)
+--- Thread: Can someone give me a rational reason why law abiding citizens need assault weapons? (/thread-63025.html)
Can someone give me a rational reason why law abiding citizens need assault weapons? - SANGINES - 02-21-2013 07:29 PM
I would really like to understand why some people oppose an assault weapons ban. And please, no need to refer to the Second Amendment, I'd like to get a well thought out response that won't insult my intellligence.
- railroad dave - 02-21-2013 07:37 PM
psychologically speaking , a big gun compensates for a small winkie . or at least the NRA and GOP think it does .
- wizjp - 02-21-2013 07:37 PM
Criminal carrying the same weapons illegally?
Weak...but it's all I got.
- ★Ŕ♡MΛŔÆ★ - 02-21-2013 07:37 PM
There is no well-thought-out response or rational reason.
- duker918 - 02-21-2013 07:37 PM
If your rationale for banning 'assault weapons' is that 'law abiding citizens' do not 'need' them, you open the opportunity for the government to ban many things it deems 'law abiding citizens' do not 'need'.
- gameface - 02-21-2013 07:37 PM
For the enjoyment of shooting it.
I know people who use AR-15s to hunt coyotes, so it can legitimately be used for hunting, despite what people say.
It is a powerful firearm, but I feel that it has been built up by those who want to ban it as some uber-powerful rapid fire machine that is on a whole different level than other semi-auto rifles and hand guns. It's not incredibly more powerful than any other gun. All the varieties of guns that exist offer trade-offs compared to one another. Semi-auto rifles are no different. They have some applications they are well suited for and many applications they are not well suited for.
If there was a major natural disaster and I was protecting myself and my family from mobs of people I would want an AR-15 over many other rifles.
That said, I have owned an AR-15 and sold it within a few months because I didn't enjoy shooting it very much. While I can see why some people would want one it didn't suit my needs.
In the end our freedoms don't need to be justified by a demonstration of what good we will do with said freedoms. Freedom should be the default position. People should be free to do what they want and own what they want by basic principle.
- Shawn Robin - 02-21-2013 07:37 PM
According to the US Supreme Court, there isn't one:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time†finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"
-US Supreme Court ruling in the case of District of Columbia vs Heller.
- Grace - 02-21-2013 07:37 PM
i'm not extremely intelligent, but i have lived for 70 years, so, here goes and i hope it helps.
1. we have more criminals than law abiding citizens. quite a lot of them are taking what they want from the unsuspecting. With guns or with taking more of Americans' freedoms.
2. When/IF, Americans becomes unarmed, those same criminals will take over and
we will have NO FREEDOM LEFT!
3. my father passed away 2005 @ the age of 95. From his 50s until his death, he stayed current with all the news and current events. he told anyone that discussed this with him, that the USA was heading down the wrong path of inching, one by one of taking our (the americans) protections, so that only the "police state" would be the all that would be left to guard you and me, should we be attacked. by OUR LEADERS or by outside sources. We need to have the same weapons of protection that the criminals have.
4. We need to feel we can protect ourselves, families and last but not least, THE USA AND ALL OUR FREEDOMS!
- george - 02-21-2013 07:37 PM
Actually every weapon is an assault weapon when used to kill people..
But I oppose the so-called assault weapons ban because the last ban did absolutely nothing from 1994-2004.
It banned the sale of so-called assault weapons made after 1994 but all assault weapons made prior to the 1994 ban were legal to sell/buy/own.
The 1994 ban did not eliminate mass shootings or reduce gun crimes. It only reduced the number of mass shootings and gun crimes committed with post 1994 assault weapons.
Basically the 1994 ban said you can buy/sell/own all the old assault weapons you want but you just cant buy/sell/own any new assault weapons. the Same with high capacity magazines buy/sell/own old ones but not new ones.
They dont want me to have a .223 semi-automatic AR15 even though its one of the most pupular guns used by hunters and target shooters because its a scary looking weapon and it can kill people quickly when you add a 30 round clip to it.
Yet they have no complaints or problems with me having a Siaga 12 Guage semi-automatic tactical shotgun that uses 25 round drum magazines and can kill 2-5 people with just 1 single round of "OO buckshot." does it make sense?
Yet they have no complaints or problems with me having a 7.65 argentine Mauser bolt action 5 round capacity that was specifically made for killing people at long distances that can fire 5 rounds in under 7 seconds. This weapon when used on a deer at 80 yards will leave a 6 inch round exit wound when the bullet exits the body....does it make sense?
Yet they have no problem or complaints that as a class 3 weapons owner I have a M16A1 and an M16A2 as well as an M1A1, an M1918 and a STEN Mk.VI all of which are fully automatic weapons with a rate of fire in excess of 500 rounds per minute, the AR15 is a toy pop gun compared to such military issue weapons...does it make sense?
My class 3 weapons are used numerous times each year in local and national competitions and rallies and also used numerous times at local shooting range because people will pay money for the chance to shoot fully automatic weapons so there is the reason that my real assault weapons are needed.
- Mark Jack - 02-21-2013 07:37 PM
@ RAMAR with all due respect just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make there opinion irrational nor does it mean your opinion is the unmitigated absolute rule that should govern every man woman and child, the same goes for my opinion.
I will try to give a good response. I am 19, very pro gun and I have been shooting since 13.
The reason I oppose a ban is because the previous AWB data came up inconclusive to whether or not it had any affect on crime. This is likely why.
Banning semiauto rifles to stop crimes is like ( and I hate to use analogies) banning Ferrari because they go fast. The truth is the vast majority of crime is committed with handguns mostly 9mm. Semiauto rifles are used least in crime out of all firearms other than full auto's which were banned ( technically heavily regulated) in the 1934 due to their use in crime by bootlegger's.
Aside from.cosmetics a semiauto hunting rifle is just a larger caliber version ( .308 for example) version of your common semiauto military STYLE ( Implying it's not the same as a military rifle such as the M4 assault rifle a select fire carbine version of the M16 assault rifle based on the original design of the armalite model 15 rifle. AR-15 )
AR-15's are civilian semiautomatic version of the military select fire ( 3 round burst and full auto) M16. They look identical to military M4's but function differently, but are often misnomered as assault rifles.
The military uses the Beretta 92 as it's main pistol it's not called an assault pistol even though it's semiautomatic and military.
Also for 99% of people they just buy the gun for the purpose of shooting inanimate targets. Just for fun. Since they aren't criminals there's no reason for them not to have one. Some use it for protection :
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=XMg0FQS6Fqo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXMg0FQS6Fqo
Or hunting / recreation.
Virginia tech shooter used. 22 cal hand guns ( they weakest ammo available ) and the Columbine shooters used hand gun chambered Hi point ( how cheap). Carbines.
Historically the Bath school tragedy had no guns used and the highest body count.
Logically banning 9mm handguns would ( if bans worked) stop several dozen times as many crimes this year than " assault rifle ".
Banning them would be a decision based on emotion and not logic, and for the good people that's not fair.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKlmZQVcXHU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R3uLTnzs60&feature=youtube_gdata_player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wUGiuMpFJ0&feature=youtube_gdata_player