Should All “assault” Weapons Be Banned In Usa, Since There Is No Rational Need For Them?

Nobody in USA or the world needs an assault weapon, except for the military and police. There is no need for them under any rational. They are strictly used for killing humans. There is no abuse of the 2nd amendment in doing so as it has been done before.The Assault weapons Act addressed only semi-automatic firearms, that is, firearms that fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Automatic weapons have been banned since 1934. Should we also make them illegal to own with no “granfather” rights and should those who currently own them turn them in for a voucher to buy a legal gun instead? We could give them a year to turn them in and then arrest those who still posses them.
I hunt deer and geese every year and have never felt the need to use a semi or extended clips to do so. I have a shotgun for home protection and have no children to worry about as they are grown.
It would be a simple thing to do and would lead to less deaths from assault weapons.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

18 Responses to “Should All “assault” Weapons Be Banned In Usa, Since There Is No Rational Need For Them?”

  1. SCE2AUX2 says:

    It is a RIGHT. “Need” is immaterial.
    “Owning a semi is not a Right under the constitution.”
    Falls under the definition of “arms,” idiot.

  2. Obama Bin Lyin' says:

    Assault Weapons are already banned in Connecticut.
    He got one anyway.

  3. neil says:

    All weapons should be legal

  4. Wolf Myth says:

    Yes, I’d say a good place to start is to ban all assault weapons in the U.S.

  5. unknown has a new name says:

    a small hand gun is enough to “protect” yourself and others

  6. Frothy Santorum is my drag name. says:

    Common sense says yes and in fact Diane Feinstein has introduced a bill in Senate to do just that. Since it does make common sense you can be assured the Tea Baggers won’t get it.

  7. Pizzaron says:

    Republicans want six year olds to carry assault weapons to school to defend themselves.

  8. Mari says:

    Didn’t read your entire question but I’m a gun rights advocate but I don’t think semi-automatic weapons should be sold to just anyone. Probably should be banned and just for those in military or law enforcement, etc.

  9. The 'Bamster! says:

    Agreed. There is no way the Framers intended that American citizens be allowed to use assault weapons.
    First – assault weapons didn’t exist at that time, so there is no way the Framers could have contemplated this issue.
    Second – The right to “keep and bear arms” doesn’t confer a right to bear ANY type of arms. Just like the right of free speech doesn’t allow you to stand on the public sidewalk and scream death threats at 4:00 AM.
    Third – The Supreme Court held that a statute banning gun use IN THE HOME is unconstitutional (See District of Colombia v. Heller). But the Court has NEVER said that a statute banning gun use in public is unconstitutional.

  10. righteou says:

    Sometimes killing humans is necessary. Deal with it.
    Exploiting other people’s tragedies to advance your own political agenda is shameful. Where is your dignity?
    This is a mental health problem. The people who suffer with, and care for people with mental illnesses have been pretty much abandoned, and left to fend for themselves. As a result, mistakes will be made. It is damning to both the Pharmaceutical Industry for exploiting them, and to the Government for failing to provide for their needs, and protect us from them.

  11. Dirk Diggler says:

    As long as you have the proper licenses, you can legally own fully automatic weapons.
    All that you’ll accomplish by making weapons illegal, is to ensure that only criminals will own them. Seriously, if you’re going to break the law, you’re not going to fret about the legality of the weapons that you’re using.
    And keep in mind the ONLY difference between a semi-automatic .223 caliber hunting rifle and a 5.56mm assault rifle is that the “assault rifle” has a “pistol grip” and is usually black in color.
    Stop trying to find ways to circumvent the 2nd amendment.

  12. Progressive Sexy Babe says:

    Fools like SCE2AUX2 and JESSE above seem to think they have a Constitutional right to a Semi, that is just not the case. They have a right to own a gun but it can be regulated to which types of guns they can own. The ban on assault weapons was found to be constitutional and even the NRA knows that. Only idiots think otherwise. Just as you have no right to own a machine gun, semi-automatics should be banned completely and no grandfather rights nor “sunset’ provisions given. These belong only in t he hands of the military and police as Fly says.

  13. hugo says:

    Because a bullet speaks louder than words, that’s how some people communicate. They just want personal protection, they don’t care if a school gets massacred, they just want to feel safe going to the basement. Any idiot can pull a trigger and thats why they have guns

  14. Terry Kincaid says:

    No. If the police and the military have assault weapons, and we don’t, then they can oppress us all they want. That would be in violation of the 2nd Amendment, which allows “the right to bear arms”. We need to defend ourselves in order to preserve our freedom. If we didn’t, it would be as though the British took over America again. And really, banning assault weapons? Is this what the founding fathers wanted?

  15. Lance B says:

    No, because there is no “rational” way to enforce it.
    Much like; Illegal Immigration, The War On Drugs, Methamphetimine Use, Moonshining, and Driving 55 MPH.
    You are living in a fantasy world, more benign maybe, but really not much different than the one these pyscho killers are living in.

  16. ivxoxvi says:

    “Assault weapon” is just a catchy name that has had various definitions depending on the whims of politicians.

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: free css template | Thanks to hostgator coupon and web hosting reviews