Can someone give me a rational reason why law abiding citizens need assault weapons?

[SANGINES]

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]

psychologically speaking , a big gun compensates for a small winkie . or at least the NRA and GOP think it does .

[wizjp]

Criminal carrying the same weapons illegally?

Weak...but it's all I got.

[Shawn Robin]

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]

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]

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.

[cajunaggie87]

1. An assault weapon ban was already tried before, and the CDC did a study on its effectiveness, and it did nothing.

2. The characteristics that distinguish banned assault weapons are all cosmetic, not functional.

3. Why do people need cars that can go 200 miles per hour? Why do people need to smoke? Why do people need to drink alcohol? Since when are freedoms determined by whether or not people need them?

4. A very small percentage (around 2%) of gun related violence is caused by assault weapons.

[sirbobby98121]

Your request to not refer to the 2A is an important feature of why many resist gun bans.

So. First off you need to define what YOU mean when you say 'assault weapon.' Most of the responses will be of the 'select fire, intermediate caliber' category. These have been under strict government control for decades. Job done.

If you mean a scary black rifle, continue.

Why ban a weapon that is used in less than [ I believe, look it up] 3% of all gun crimes?
What logical process does this address? Akin to banning Piranha fishing in Oklahoma...no purpose is served.

What weapon is seen whenever a police response is needed - a bank robbery for example.
Cops with AR15s, of course.



Why do people want to restrict my safety and ability to defend myself?

[Cody]

well think about this to people dont need that brand new mercedes but they want it..... why are libs trying to smash right's?

[Joe]

FREEDOM OF CHOICE. BUT WHY DO YOU ASK?

NO ANSWER WILL BE SATISFACTORY FOR YOU. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ANY WEAPON THAT IS NOT AN "ASSAULT WEAPON." IT IS ONLY A NAME FOR A USEFUL TOOL.

BUT THAT DOESN'T SUIT YOU, DOES IT. Let's just end this. We need to impose our rights on you instead of you taking away our rights.