From ABC News:
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
I saw this story on Digg earlier, and people seemed really upset about it, calling the President a lying bastard and whatnot. First of all, it’s pretty well-known that President Obama is pro-gun control. Second, why the hell does anyone need an assault rifle in the first place? I mean, assault rifles are made for one purpose: killing people. You can’t hunt with them; all you can do is slaughter people. Quickly. So call me crazy, but I think anything made for the sole purpose of killing people should be restricted from the general public. I really can’t see any reason for people to have them…I’ve certainly never seen any good done with an assault rifle.
If anyone can give me a good reason or two why someone SHOULD own an assault weapon, I’ll change my mind. Otherwise I think President Obama is right on the money by re-enacting the ban.
Source: ABC News
Filed under: Musings, News, Politics | 4 Comments
Tags: assault weapons, gun control, guns, obama, second amendment
what i’m listening to- Lady GaGa – Summerboy
- Kelly Clarkson – My Life Would Suck Without You
- Nikki Blonsky – Good Morning Baltimore
- Adele – Chasing Pavements
- Eisley – If You're Wondering
- New Radicals – You Get What You Give
- Kate Walsh – Tonight
- The Temper Trap – Soldier On
- The Proclaimers – I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)
- Fleetwood Mac – As Long as You Follow
- twitter
You can hunt with an “Assault rifle”, it’s really easy most state laws just specify how many bullets may be in the gun at the time while hunting. A standard 12 gage pump shotgun holds 5 rounds but when hunting you may only have 3 rounds in the gun.
Plus do you know the difference between an assault rifle and a normal rifle? These assault rifles you are talking about are semi-automatic not fully automatic and they use the same ammunition that many other rifles do that are not called assault rifles. It is purely over cosmetics such as any rifle that has a pistole style grip or if it has a folding stock and the amount of storage in the guns clip.
An AR-15 (commonly called an assault rifle) fires a 5.56 round that is smaller and less powerful than a common .308 Winchester round used in many hunting rifles. Granted an AR-15 can hold more rounds in the clip but that is about the only advantage it has since they are both semi-auto.
The point of owning one of these “Assault Weapons” other than they can be used for hunting is they are very good guns for self defense. Self Defense being one of the main purposes of the Second Amendment. The more storage you have in the clip the less likely you will have to reload if something very bad happens like a whole group of gang-bangers shows up at your doorstep. Plus it scares the hell out of the criminals making it less likely that you would even have to use the thing. Is that a good enough of a reason?
The other point of the 2nd is so that the people may be sufficiently armed to protect the nation and themselves against tyranny. And is that a good enough of a reason?
If you want to read up on the Second Amendment I suggest you read the ruling from the DC vs. Heller case here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
I have to admit that I don’t really know the difference between an assault rifle and a regular rifle; I’ve only held a gun once in my life, and it was to shoot at a beer can.
Your reasoning makes sense, but it’s all hypothetical and I guess I have a problem with people owning dangerous weapons for hypothetical situations instead of the presence of any actual danger. They really seem to cause a great deal more violence than they prevent.
But that’s just how I feel about it…I’m just not a fan of guns, and don’t have any intention of owning one if I don’t need to. I don’t know if that makes me naive or what, but I like to think most people aren’t in any danger of needing to use a gun to defend themselves.
It’s not hypothetical, guns are used about 2.2 million to 2.5 million times a year in self defense and rarely does the person ever have to pull the trigger. Also about 32,000 people die from guns (murder, suicide accident) making it about 75 self defense uses or guns for every 1 person harmed by guns. And it is illegal guns that are the problem. Criminals by nature have no problem breaking gun laws and buying whatever they want on the streets any gun law that makes it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns to self defense and does nothing to stop criminals from getting them is only disarming people who would not use the gun for a crime, since almost all gun crime is done with illegal guns.
Now there is nothing wrong with some gun laws such as training programs or background checks and such since these keep people with criminal backgrounds or the insane form getting guns, although these laws can never be perfect since nothing can be, but telling people they can have certain kind of gun just because it looks scary is silly.
You get home owners insurance just in case you house burns down but rarely does that happen. You buy a gun just in case you have to use it it’s that simple. Plus the chance that the cops will be able to get there in time is very slim, I have a lot of friends that are cops and basically their job is to mop up after the crime is committed and rarely are they ever there to stop the crime.
It’s fine if you don’t want to own guns yourself but just because you do not feal comfortable with having your own is not a good argument against law abiding citizens to have them legally.
A lot more people die in car accidents each year than by any sort of violent crime should we take away cars?
Whether or not someone “needs” one is not up to you to decide. The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the bill of rights. “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.”
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?