A claim that ultimately means nothing. Politicians seeking to further restrict firearms ownership claim to own firearms as well, in an effort to suggest that they are not the enemy.
Originally Posted by popopolitics
First and foremost, the AR-15 is in no way a so-called assault rifle. It is nothing more than a semi-automatic firearm, largely no different from any other semi-automatic that has been freely available for the last one hundred years. Semi-automatic rifles were marketed towards hunters and sportsmen first, long before any military regarded them as a viable option.
I should have noted that there are responsible gun owners of assault rifles, and people who enjoy firing them at gun ranges etc., but personally I don't see the purpose for an citizen to own an assault rifle unless you contemplate a group or militia attacking you or your property.
In the city of Nice, in the nation of France, one person operating a motor vehicle managed to kill eighty six individuals, and injure another four hundred and thirty four individuals in a span of less than five minutes. No firearms were involved, only one motor vehicle. That is a significantly higher number of victims than any mass shooting in the united states, where firearms are indeed involved. This would suggest motor vehicles are far more dangerous than any firearm ever could be, since it would name multiple mass shootings to equal the same number of dead and injured.
I know there's no way to win this argument but my opinion changed after Omar Mateen was able to purchase a rifle with an AR-15 style magazine that killed 49 people and wounded 53 others the Orlando Night Club massacre.
- - - Updated - - -
At the time of the ratification of the second amendment, the mentally disturbed were locked up in asylums, never to be released into society again, or otherwise outright killed.
Originally Posted by Scampi
If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling, and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.