I understand being able to have the right to own a gun,but why are some people against banning assault weapons

Question

If you're a hunter,for instance and if you shoot a deer with an assault weapon,you'll just end up with deer nuggets!! Why does anyone need an assault weapon?

Answer 1

Who classify's what is a gun and what is an assault weapon? If you call a small arm an assault weapon does that mean it has no other legitimate use besides assaulting people?

Not necessarily. I vacation in South Carolina a lot (where I have a piece of property right off the beach) and there's problems with snakes and even alligators. In the case of some very large animal posed a threat, carrying around a hunting rifle wouldn't be feasible at all for a small girl like me. A handgun or as it is by some groups classified as an assault weapon is far more feasible for self protection in that situation.

What classifies something as an assault weapon, right now from my understanding it's being fully automatic. But there are a lot of people who then use the "Assault Weapon" banner to refer to any firearm smaller than a rifle.

Basically the problem is classifying something that has a legitimate use as an assault rifle.

Why not ban assault knives? What are assualt knives, well let's just say any knife between this size and this size. That's basically how the classification for "assualt weapon" came about.

The reason people are against it is two fold. Number one it's a violation of the constitutional right to bear arms since there was no limitation that said "Bear arms strictly for the purpose of hunting". Number two if you classify certain guns as assault weapons what stops more and more guns from being classified as assault weapons under more stringent classifications? At what point does it stop?

There are people who collect guns, people who use them for target practice and in some cases people who use them for hunting. The term assualt weapon is something that's open to interpretation and you could technically start classifying things like knives, axes, and you name it under that classification if you continue to allow firearms to be treated in that manner.

Basically, there has to be a limit to a governments power. We live in a free society, this isn't China, this isn't Soviet Russia. We should have the right to own handguns. There are legitimate uses for them besides killing people as stated above.

Answer 2

By definition, assault weapons are those that can be fired in a fully automatic mode. They have been strictly regulated and "banned" from private ownership since the 1930's when gangsters used fully automatic Thompson submachine guns to commit crimes and the local cops were outgunned.

I've never seen anyone use an assault weapon (one that is fully automatic) to go hunting. And I've been a hunter for over 40 years. I'm sure there have been instances of someone violating the law, but that's the key point in this discussion. There ARE laws already on the books prohibiting hunting with fully automatic weapons.

Your question reminds me of the automobile debate. Let's ban all cars that can go more than 80mph. If you're a driver and you can't legally drive more than 80mph in the U.S., why would you NEED a car that can go that fast? Besides, there's nothing in the Bill of Rights that guarantees ownership of an automobile. But there is a guarantee in the 2nd Amendment to own firearms..... whether they be "assault" weapons or not.

Answer 3

I agree. People using an AK-47 or an Uzi with a folding stock to hunt the wily deer of North America.

However, there are gun collecters (the serious ones) who do collect and shoot these weapons for target practice. In that instance I can see their point. Granted there always is the fellow who goes off the deep end and loads up his legally owned Thompson sub machine gun and walks into a Wal-Mart with mischief on his mind. We can't address the "what-if" though. Although I'm sure they'll be some sob sister out there who will disagree but sorry, people are killed everyday and for the most part it's unavoidable. However, only a fruitcup would use a military assault weapon for hunting.

Answer 4

Gun control sucks, period. Our founding fathers brought forth the revolution because they got sick of a tyranical government that was over-taxing them, forcing a state church, and a lot of other crap. So they wrote into the constitution the right for us to keep and bear arms.

Militia is NOT the reserves as many gun-grabbers falsely think. It's an irregular military that is called when the military is not enough (or if the military is the target themselves.

With that in mind, when you start banning one type of gun, it goes to the next, and then the next, then guess what... no more guns. Think about what happened in Germany during the rise of Hitler. They instituted gun control 'for the safety of the citizens'. They enacted a gun-registration law. After they were all registered the third-reich came around and grabbed them all up, and the government put a 100% ban on guns. Once that was done and the guns were banned, millions of Jewish people were murdered.

Not saying that will happen in the USA, but look at our Government. Too powerful... too much damn taxes.... and they don't give a darn about our border security. If they won't protect us, who will? We will.

Answer 5

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. There are no assault weapons available for sale in the US today. Part of being an assault weapon is the ability to have full auto. The ATF has simply refused to issue an licenses for full auto since 1986.

Many of the rounds used by so called 'assault weapons' are actually comparable to hunting rounds. the 7.62 x 39 used by AK-47s and SKSs is comparable in size and performance to a .30-30, a common hunting round.

Need has nothing to do with it either. Look around your house. You don't need 90% of what you have to survive.

Gun control laws simply don't work. By definition only law abiding folks obey them. The criminals ignore them and get whatever kind of gun they want.

Answer 6

Let me ask you, why do you think the framers of the Constitution included the right to keep and bear arms? So we could hunt for sport, and shoot at clay pigeons? We had just been through a war of independence, where British soldiers had the right to commandeer your home, your guns, and persecute you for speaking out against it, even though you hadn't been accused of any crime. When we became our own country, we decided that such behavior was anathema to our beliefs, so we constructed laws to prevent national or local governments from duplicating such behavior. We may keep guns, because the government has no right to take them from us. It's that simple.

As people have become more dependent upon the government, however, we are slowly allowing them that right, because we are afraid. Afraid that bad men in the night will come and kill us, unless the government stops them. Accept that the government doesn't actually stop them. So, we relinquish our ability to defend ourselves, but the bid bad men are still at our door. meanwhile, our government is too busy with less important issues to wonder if we are okay.

I realize how simpleminded this explanation has become, but that's sort of the point. They are our guns. The government has no right to them. It really is that simple.

Answer 7

Assault weapons started out in the hands of those that believed in the coming of the new world order chaos. They simply wanted to be able to fight firepower with firepower. Now it has turned into being in the hands of those that simply create chaos on the streets of our neighbourhoods. Banning assault weapons or any weapon is never the answer. A gun cannot kill anyone unless it is in the hands of someone that is using it to kill someone else. The ban should be on the judicial system from allowing these people to continue to be released without being punished for improper use of a firearm of any kind.

Answer 8

For one thing the sheer enjoyment of using it.
Second, the founders intended the second amendment for another check and balance aimed (no pun intended) at the Federal Government so the national government doesn't take to much power from the states. The founders fully intended private citizens owning military weapons.

The argument that no one for saw machine guns, is very interesting considering DaVinci had a design for one in his notebooks.

Answer 9

They don't it plays on peoples fears.
If the criminals have assault weapons then I need them to to protect myself. This view is foolish because. If someone comes at you with an assault weapon you wouldn't have time to fight back. You would have to think about it. They don't.
That split second means your death.
You don't know if they mean you harm. but they know they intent to kill you. Most people unfortunately never use it against an intruder with another assault weapon. It is used as one family member to another. 9 times out of 10. That is an expression the odds are much higher than Jr will shot his brother playing.

Answer 10

If this was 1776 and you were the British....what kind of guns would you allow the colonists to have and why? Well...if only the government has assault rifles then the populace will not have a means to resist. The government does not want you to have body Armour either....only them. The right to bare arms was for a means to resist an oppressive government.