I am conducting a survey for my own interest. I am very knowledgable on firearms and am just curious about peoples reactions as well as there ignorance to the whole debate on gun control.
2006-12-01 09:16:49 · 25 answers · asked by waltmcnameeiii 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
If you are "knowledgable about firearms" then you know that any rifle is an "assault rifle" if it is used while assaulting anyone. What are commonly referred to as "assault rifles" are semi-automatic rifles which possess certain cosmetic features that make them look frightening. The ones so designated are no more deadly than the common deer rifle. The Second Amendment to the Constitution referred to "the people", we individuals, owning military firearms so as to be able to fulfill the function of a militia and that the militia (composed of all able bodied persons) be "regulated", which meant they were competent in the use of said weapons. Fully automatic firearms, so called "machine guns" are NOT illegal in the US. The requirement is that you pay a $200 tax to the Federal Government to have one.
I support the Constitution on this subject: every citizen should be able to own, and be required to own and be proficient with individual military grade firearms.
2006-12-01 09:38:15 · answer #1 · answered by Wiz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's very disconcerting that there's no way to stop Orwellian Newspeak and get the general public real information on the subject. I also think if you don't know the difference between select fire and semi-auto, if you don't appreciate the rate of fire that can be obtained with a Winchester model of 1873 lever gun, if you have no clue as to the difference between the two Russian rounds 7.62x54R and 7.62x39, then before you open your mouth on the subject, much less vote, you should go find some "gun nut" to give you an education. I am also puzzled why people think you can buy them easily, and what the problem would be if you could. Heck, most every house in Switzerland has one inside, and it's no big deal.
2006-12-02 02:48:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I resent that people are so quick to condemn firearms.
I am just starting to get into the sport of shooting. My initial interest was in handguns. I shot an IPSC competition here in california. I did horribly, but still had a lot of fun. I purchased a ruger 9mm handgun and have been happy with it so far. I saw a lot of other types of guns that people have out at the range and got talking to people about how california is trying to "outlaw" AR's. I was convinced to buy one before they are banned. I purchased an AR lower. I plan on building the rest of it when I have the money, but really I dont know much about the specs on assult riffles. I plan to do a lot of research before finishing my AR build but i am pretty set on going with .223.
As far as crime is concerned I dont think assult rifles are a big threat. They are not a "handy" gun to use for a domestic crime. I cant remember ever hearing of a bank robery by somebody sporting an AR. If we simply enforced the gun laws that existed already here in california they could relize they dont need to make more. The only people who are hurt by the laws are the people who stay legal. The real criminals dont even have registered firearms. not to mention its already illegal to rob a bank or commit murder, why ban guns?
Yeah guns can be used as a tool for many different jobs, but if they were simply gone, people would simply invent a new way to accomplish the same jobs. Crossbows, bows, spears, swords, non-combustion projectiles (rail guns), stun guns, baseball bats, scythes, cars, grenades, kitchen sinks...can they ban them all?
2006-12-01 17:32:55 · answer #3 · answered by trevathecleva 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If by a selective fire weapon instead of the incorrect labeling of a semi-auto rifle as an assault weapon. The constitution is pretty clear that private citizens should be allowed to own full-auto weapons if you go in the Federalist Papers, especially those written by Madison. The whole purpose of the second amendment was another check and balance against the power of the National government.
2006-12-02 06:43:03 · answer #4 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they are beautiful machines. the legal definition is largely cosmetic, "does it have a bayonet lug?", "does it have 3 of the following military characteristics?", if no, then it is safe to own, if yes, then it is evil. its ridiculous. guns dont kill people, pyschos kill people.
the nature of the second amendment was to be an insurance policy for the rest of the consititution. should the military, and police fail to protect the country, it would be up to the individual citizen to protect the country. So the founding fathers made certain that the minutemen who saved the country during the dark hours of the American revolution, would be able to remain into the future, to protect the country in a time of need. Now, the minutemen had weapons on par with standard infantry of standing nations. they had brown bess's. single shot muskets like the redcoats, should citizens only be allowed to own brown bess's for the rest of the future. or should they be allowed to legally own weapons on par with modern infantry, in order to remain a threat to foriegn invaders should the government and military fail us in the future, and protecting the nation be on the shoulders of the individual citizen soldier and minuteman?
2006-12-01 17:41:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ahhh, the beautiful assault riffle. they do not have to be machine guns, many are semi-automatic. it is the shape that designates them as assault rifle, not how many bullets they can fire per second. Assault rifles are exactly what our forefathers had in mind when the penned the second amendment. "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." the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting rifles. I agree that we should be allowed to continue our ownership of these weapons. To defend ourselves or to use it all hell breaks loose.
2006-12-01 17:32:14 · answer #6 · answered by higg1966 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The context of the 2nd amendment was to allow for the citizens to form their own militias. Self-protection via guns was assumed a basic right for all. But, having the ability form and "arm" militias needed to be explicit in the constitution and so being a purist yes they should have the right to own one.
Being from the sticks and around hunters all my life its seems both unnecessary. Additionally, our country is past the point of being to protect itself from the government. So, they are not needed. I'm a conservative republican btw.
2006-12-01 17:38:21 · answer #7 · answered by wallsatlarge 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The ONLY things that make it an "assualt rifle" are cosmetics. They shoot the same rounds as people use for hunting. OOOOHHH! It has a pistol grip and looks different. Big deal. It's still just a rifle. Guns don't kill people. Stupid people with guns kill people.
2006-12-01 17:32:07 · answer #8 · answered by mikis1967 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
hey dude
my feelings are very positive towards assult riffles.
they are very reliable eg m16 or the m4 as they call it. they are like a gun experts best friend with the exception of the ak 47. so yeah all riffles and assult riffles are great gins some of the best are riffles. hope this answer is good enough.
2006-12-01 17:30:53 · answer #9 · answered by johnny300 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you mean assault rifles:
They don't belong into private hands. For the same
reason a quad 14mm AA gun doesn't belong in your
garden. Regulations shouldn't be lifted.
If you talk about pseudo assault rifles:
If you must look like GI Jo do it.
But don't complain if the cops shoot before they ask.
2006-12-01 17:26:55 · answer #10 · answered by Alex S 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋