What's the argument for allowing assault rifles?

The argument for allowing private citizens to own true, fully automatic assault rifles (AK 47, M-4's, MP-44's, etc.) is that they have an almost perfect safety record in the hands of their owners here in the US. Since the firearms act of 1934, citizens may own registered Class 3 fully automatic weapons. There have been thousands of citizens who have owned them, but from my investigation, there have been only a couple of cases where these guns were used by their legal owners to commit crimes. One was a case where an off duty cop killed a drug dealer with a Mac-10 (which is not an assault rifle)---so this is acutually not such a bad instance. The guys who spend such a large amount of money on these expensive guns are about the last people who break the law.

I say, let all honest citizens have them, but there should be real assault weapons laws---that work. If someone uses an automatic weapon in the act of any violent crime, even if it is not fired, then they should face automatic federal death penalty charges, with no plea deals or reduced charges allowable.

 

It's because we own guns that we are not subject to combat conditions.

You want combat conditions? Move to Mexico where honest citizens can not own guns. Or Chicago even!

 

Yup. France is a war zone.

Laughable.

 

I have a copy of an original military assault weapon. A Winchester lever action. I also have others, an M1 Garand and an E. Robertson Contract 1861 Musket.

 

I didn't mention France, but if that's where you want to live, knock yourself out.

 

Good point. You know, the argument against our god given 2nd amendment rights is that we shouldn't have the same weapons as our Military. But when the bill of rights was written, the citizens had the same types of guns as the Military. So why can we have the same weapons as the military? Full Auto baby! Why Not?!

 

The True Agenda of U.N. and State Department Gun Control
- "Civilian ownership of any firearm in the U.S. threatens the legitimate power monopoly of the state."
http://americathebattlefield.blogspot.com/2012/07/true-agenda-of-un-and-state-department.html

U.S. State Department 1961 memorandum 7277
'Freedom From War: "The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World"
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

 

You made the claim that guns are the only reason we don't live in a war zone.

I cite France, and can cite many more countries with heavy gun control, that are not war zones.

Instead of acknowledging the fact you were just curb stomped, you avoid the question.

Your argument contradicts reality and nothing short of purely asinine.

 

They are a mjor reason, yes. But I never said it was the only reason.

So go live there. In this country we have guns. Notice it's not a War Zone. Well except for Chicago, you know, where they outlaw guns so only criminals have them? You know that place?

No, you are completely wrong. You don't like it here in America where we have guns? Get the Fu#k out! Wuss.

 

Oh, so one example sets a trend? Thats nice. Chicago is a war zone? A war zone you say? In what sense? Are there bombs going off?

Oh wait, you are referring to gang violence as "war like activity". Thats cute. I can see an argument for allowing civilians better access to firearms. But to use Chicago as an example for allowing civilian to own automatic weapons? How is access to miltary weapons going to make the situation better? That is simply asinine.

No, you are completely wrong. In every sense of the word.

Also, some people, including myself, own and build firearms.


Difference being, I do not make asinine arguments to justify such argument, and I am not intellectually bankrupt to such an extent that I must change the subject to divert attention from my argument being curb stomped. Just because I am in favor of gun ownership and gun rights does not mean that I must be blatantly stupid about the issue.

 

There is absolutely no problem with the type of weapons being owned by people, in my honest opinion.
It's the type of people that own weapons that is the problem!

 

Very eloquently said.

 

No not at this particular moment. But during our collective and for some a personal history, combat does visit the lives of American citizens. When the Constitution was written it wasn't to far removed from the time when Americans sought freedom from oppression. Their arms were the tools used to win and keep the freedom they desired.

I think there is an inherent American suspicion regarding government. Look at what happened to law abiding citizens during Katrina. Some might have thought possessing an AR-15 very beneficial then or choose any crime involving an unarmed citizen and consider what a law abiding citizen might need or have a right too.

 

The idea of waging war against the government is null. Your AR-15 isn't going to take down a tank or a drone.

As for situations like Katrina, yes, that is one of the reason why I own guns.

 

You would have to find American federal fighting men willing to attack and kill American civilians. No doubt there are a number that may well follow orders to that end but do so in conflict with their oath and with the federal constitution. Personally I would not wage war against the government but I would seek to defend myself against unlawful aggressors both foreign and domestic.

The AR-15 is not designed as an anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapon. But it can prolong resistance. I don't know how many terrorist tanks are in service but the terrorist and his AK may still be of some consequence on some level in the political spectrum. He may soon have a country or two in his pocket.

Ruby Ridge and Waco are other examples of times when the government chose a course that was not the best for the citizens (innocent until proven guilty-now dead children, women and men) involved. What reportedly did give government forces pause was the thought that these Americans might be armed.

Any law that would prohibit a law abiding citizen the defense of a firearm is also a tool designed to be taken advantage of by the tyrant (i.e. recent CO theatre shooting). An armed citizen is one to be given thoughtful consideration before moving against him or her. Consider that a deterrent.

Automatic weapons are not prohibited but the government does tax one for the right to own one. Prior to that act anyone who could afford one could keep and bear it. The federal government used the acts of criminals to make it prohibitive for the law abiding citizen. Acts of criminals should not dictate the rights of the citizen.

 

Actually according to the 2nd amendment, it is the other way around. There is no good reason to ban them.

 

Then you won't mind if I come over to your house and examine your bank statements. I need to know your bank account numbers and passwords.

 

Google unwarranted, seems you need to brush up.

 

[video=youtube;GcqtvQ523I8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcqtvQ523I8[/video]

I'm glad he was very remorseful, and yes, we all wish he didn't make the choice he did, der.

 

Then why would the government care what we own?

 

Because it is obvious that some firearms are more dangerous than others.

 

And very obvious some gun owners are more dangerous then others

 

Just sayin.

 

Maybe, but based on actual use the guns considered to be more dangerous are far less likely to be used by a civilian to commit a crime than the ones that have been deemed less dangerous.

 

True, most deaths are caused by the .22 and .380, relatively small caliber handguns.