My governor (The Governator) doesn't like these guns. How about you?
2007-07-13 02:59:10 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The second amendment was designed to protect the people from the government. If the government comes after us with AK-47, it would be pretty tough to defend ourselves with a hand gun or a hunting rifle.
2007-07-13 03:05:24 · answer #1 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Put into the wrong hands, rocket launchers and other top heavy weaponry post a serious risk and could result in many needless deaths. The same can be said for handguns and other concealed weapons. This is why societies and governments impose REASONABLE restrictions on ownership of such weapons (in accordnance with the amount of risk they pose), such as banning the mentally ill or convicted felons from owning handguns or restricting assault weapons solely for military use. However, even that is too much government "interference" for the likes of rabid gun-nuts and hardcore "Constitutionalists" alike. Therefore, if they oppose gun control of any type, logically speaking, they must accept that even military weaponry should be allowed on the open market. Your comparison isn't that far off as it seems.
2016-05-21 10:01:35 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. AK47's legal to own for citizens are not full auto.
.50's are practically useless for crime purposes.
I don't care for these guns either. The AK is inaccurate and the .50 is impractical.
For long range and terminal performance,
I'll take an M14/ M1A1 any day.
2007-07-13 03:07:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree with owning guns for hunting and protection.
Do you really need an assault rifle that's horribly inaccurate and a .50 cal? Something smaller like a .357 or a 9mm is more than enough to defend your family.
.50 cal isn't practical for defending your house either. I never said anything about it being a bad gun. Just not suited for that use.
2007-07-13 03:08:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely, the .50 cal is an incredible piece of machinery that is not a concern. The gun is 46 inches long and 25 lbs- not practical for robbing a convenient store.
2007-07-13 03:13:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely.
The second amendment exists to allow the people the tools to overthrow the government if the need should arise...again.
That is what "insuring the security of a free state" means.
2007-07-13 03:03:18 · answer #6 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why not? The guns are not 'crime guns' in that they are not handguns or concealable, and have similar stopping power to hunting rifles.
2007-07-13 03:06:47 · answer #7 · answered by Matthew P 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why would you need- something like that except to kill lots of people?
No I don't think a private citizen is entitled to their own personal army surplus store complete with weapons of mass destruction.
2007-07-13 03:03:52 · answer #8 · answered by tnfarmgirl 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes we should.
For the sake of defending ourselves from criminals
For the sake of defeding ourselves during disasters.
For the sake of defending ourselves from tyranny.
For the sake of defending our nation from invasion.
2007-07-13 03:02:49 · answer #9 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Sure, as long as you can get them legally be my guest. I like guns, but why someone needs and AK-47 is beyond me. But it is your right to own one as long as you get it legally and use it legally.
2007-07-13 03:04:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋