Should US citizens be allowed to own assault rifles? How about hand guns?

Answer 1

yes Why not?

Answer 2

Military assault rifles are fully automatic weapons which you can't own without a federal permit. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle which fires a .223 round. On the other hand you can get a Glock hand gun .45 cal with a 13 round clip. The round is nearly twice the diameter of the .223 and the gun is a lot easier to conceal being the AR is over 3 feet long. In some states you can hunt deer with a .45 pistol. You can't with a .223 rifle.

Answer 3

Neither. Assault rifles are made for one thing only... killing people. There is no reason for any private citizen to own one. As for handguns, it's interesting to note that the U.S. has more handgun deaths than ALL of the other western democracies COMBINED. Somebody didn't think this through very well. The old "it's a constitutional right" sort of falls apart when you consider that it's also a constitutional right to own slaves. The authors of the constitution made allowances for changes called "amendments". Trouble is, no politician has the gonads to take on the gun lobby.

Answer 4

Hand guns I could understand, but there's no reason for regular citizens to own assault rifles.

Answer 5

Absolutely, I just wish the stupid 1986 gun law didn't exist because it made assault rifles to expensive.

Answer 6

You never know when the natives or English could come and try to over tax you for Tea. So they better have them.

Other than that, it's purely stupidity to allow weapons to be a civil liberty.

Answer 7

i say if u wanna fire arm like that, u can have one, but there is a uniform and boots waiting for u

there is no reason to have an assault rifle

Answer 8

yes and yes.
all those opposed will wish they had one when and if the government imposses martial law.

Answer 9

Both.