Why do I read so many people talking about how they are pro firearm ownership but that we shouldn't have assault riffles? They all say that you don't hunt with them, or that they doubt they are what the constitution is talking about when they say "arms." That is exactly what the constitution is talking about. They were talking about protection of yourself, from anyone. Tell you what, I am going to shoot rocks at you with a sling shot, you only get to throw them back... lets see who wins. My question is, what is so hard to understand about owning assault rifles? I have owned three for several years now, and I still haven't gone on a murdering rampage, killing spree at the mall, or even done anything illegal. Weird, legal owners staying legal.
2007-02-27 11:50:09 · 2 answers · asked by Curtis 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The correct definition of an assault weapon is either full-auto or selective fire. If you read the Federalist Papers and the various writings of our Founders when it comes to firearms.
You can't tell me with the great scientific minds of Jefferson and Franklin not being able to conceive of a multi-round firing weapons, especially since Da Vinci developed a multibarrelled weapon a couple of hundred years before.
2007-02-27 18:07:36 · answer #1 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Assault rifle" is only a scare tactic used by lying morons like Kennedy and Pelosi to slowly erode your basic Constitutional right to own a gun.
We already have controls to restrict the ownership and use of automatic weapons. They want to call semi-automatics, deer rifles, shotguns and pistols that hold more than 6 rounds assault weapons just to make you afraid.
2007-03-01 05:22:53 · answer #2 · answered by RockHunter 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋