Should assault weapons be allowed in the United States as means of allowing individuals to defend themselves?

Topic:
U.S. Political Debates

18 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
33% of users

  • The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly allows for this.

    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that United States citizens "have the right to bear arms". To me, this means that any legal citizen has the right to obtain and use any gun he sees fit to protect himself with. If our founding fathers wanted to regulate which guns could and could not be had, then they would have said that the citizens have the right to bear only some arms.

    Yes BryanPeterson

  • Assault weapons should be allowed in the United States for individuals to defend themselves, as it is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

    The Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, and this includes assault rifles. The intention of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens the ability to defend themselves from domestic or foreign aggressors. In the modern era, an assault weapon is the standard military weapon and, therefore, should be freely available for self-defense.

    Yes EminentBennett93

  • Yes, but under strict allowance.

    I agree but under a strict allowance to do so, but under going a background check and psychological tests to make sure you won't go around killing people in the near future or ever. It is a Constitutional Right, but the Right was written to prevent any invasions from foreign nations back when we didn't have a central army.

    Yes Anonymous

  • No, because assault weapons are far too powerful for use as individual home defense weapons.

    Assault weapons are designed to kill the maximum number of people in a minimum amount of time. They are not appropriate for home defense as they are extremely overpowered for that task. It would be akin to buying a Mack truck to pull a camping trailer. There are no legitimate civilian uses for such weapons.

    Yes SlyHymie

  • The Second Amendment isn't about Hunting

    The Second Amendment as previously stated by the above poster was written in the constitution to allow the citizenry to be armed incase the government becomes tyrannical and the republic with all its liberties must be reestablished by force. How can this be accomplished if we allow only police and military units of the government to own such weapons as suggested by SteinCor? How can the populace rise up against the government (if it ever becomes necessary) armed with bolt action rifles, and revolvers against the military of said government who is armed to the teeth with all matter of fully automatic weapons? "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 For those who would say that criminals commit horrible crimes with such weapons, I would only say that criminals, by definition break the law, and criminals will continue to do so despite the gun laws enacted. I will also add that the sheer ignorance of those who draft such laws is baffling. Laws enacted which attack aesthetics of a gun such as barrel shrouds which do not change the function of a gun, folding stocks, etc. The fact that most use semi automatic and automatic interchangeably when they are vastly different things. The fact is, by stripping good people of their right to bear arms strips them of their defense against crime. The tyranny of evil men is also a tyranny which these laws defend us from. Couldn't a few assault weapons have been used by good people to defend themselves in the after math of Katrina?

    Yes Anonymous

  • The Constitution clearly requires the right to bear arms.

    Assault weapons, which is just a scary word for firearms, are protected under the Constitution. This is not a protected right just to keep us safe from burglars, but to keep us safe from tyrannical governments. That is why it was written down to begin with. The founders had just freed themselves from the yoke of tyranny, and they knew that would not have been possible if they didn't have the tools to defend themselves. Any individual intent on harming someone will do so whether they are armed with an automatic, semi-automatic, or black powder rifle. They could use a knife to accomplish the same thing. A gun is just a tool. The person is what we need to worry about, not what tools they have at their disposal.

    Yes RanseYouhave
Voice Your Opinion
No
67% of users

  • Assault weapons are made to kill, not to defend, so they have no place in the hands of private citizens.

    Assault weapons are not meant to do anything, except spray massive amounts of bullets into a person over a short period of time. When defending oneself, a clear shot to the leg can disarm a person. Killing is not the aim in self-defense. These weapons are the ones that are killing America's youth, and they should be banned outright.

    No NoisyAlva89

  • The right to bear arms should not include assault weapons.

    There is no instance where it would be necessary for a common person to have access to an assault weapon. The right to bear arms gives every American reasonable means to protect him or herself. A hand held revolver or rifle is more than enough to defend oneself when faced with harm. To allow people access to assault weapons would give them a means of using unnecessary force.

    No TedieDelight

  • I think that regular handguns are appropriate for self defense, not assault weapons.

    I am not a gun control advocate. I also do not advocate taking away the right to bear arms, which has been a fundamental right of our nation since its founding. However, I do not believe that anyone needs to have any kind of assault weapon to defend their rights. All anyone needs to defend their rights and their liberty is a good solid handgun, or even a blunt object for that matter.

    No MariaR

  • I am against the legality of assault weapons because nobody in normal activity needs that sort of firepower for self-protection.

    People generally just do not encounter situations where they would need an assault weapon to protect themselves or loved ones. Whatever weapons that are currently legal are enough firepower even IF the unlikely situation arises. An assault weapon is overkill, and is much more likely to be used by a criminal in a mass murder than it ever would be for protection.

    No tabundes

  • Assault weapons should be used by military and police and not allowed to be in the hands of regular citizens.

    Assault weapons are essentially weapons which are meant to be used by law-enforcement officers and military personnel. In the hands of common, ordinary citizens they can be misused and abused. In addition, if an ordinary citizen has such weapons lying around the house, they might fall into the hands of their children with catastrophic results. Also, if a home is burglarized and the weapons fall into the hands of criminals, an assault weapon merely gives them another weapon in their arsenal with which to create more mayhem in our already violent society. While gun-lovers and members of the NRA might argue that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional guarantee, their interpretation is entirely wrong. The Constitution reads (paraphrased) "to keep a well-armed militia" and the common person with an assault weapon hardly falls into that category.

    No SteinCor

  • I oppose the legalization of assault weapon in the United States because I believe it would make the country less safe.

    Assault weapons allow an individual and excessive amount of fire power. This could be extremely dangerous in the wrong hands, which would inevitably happen at some point. Access to this amount of fire power would also risk the lives of law enforcement officers by allowing a single gun to be much more of a threat.

    No 5c4ryMonr

  • I don't think assault weapons should be allowed in the US because they are more often used against the person that is trying to defend themselves.

    Assault weapons should not be allowed in the US as means of allowing individuals to defend themselves. There are studies that show that people who have weapons as a means of defense do not know how to effectively use them, and they are often used against them or accidentally. A better means to defend oneself is to take a self-defense class and to think proactively in situations that might become dangerous.

    No toastedstandard

  • NO, they should be outlawed and this should be strictly enforced.

    No, there is no reason for allowing assault weapons to be used by everyday citizens to defend themselves. There isn't fighting in the streets like a war zone. These weapons are not made for use by anybody with the money to buy one. They are a weapon that people receive training to learn how to use. They are deadly and totally unnecessary.

    No PinkMych

  • I oppose making assault weapons available in the United States as a method for citizens to defend themselves because the more weapons we have in society, the more people that will be harmed by them, accidently and deliberately.

    If assault weapons were available to allow people to defend themselves, it also means they would be available for people to use them to harm others. We already have too many dangerous weapons in society and ever year so many lives are irreversibly effected by the damage they cause. People die and are injured by their intentional use, but also due to accidents in the home. Making these weapons available means more children will die in shooting accidents if they are left unattended.

    No CestbardeI

  • Firearms should be taken off the streets and out of peoples houses.

    I think that there are more murders as a result of accidental firing of firearms than from someone actually using a gun in self defense. Guns need to be removed from society. They are deadly and have resulted in a lot of lost lives. It may just be hopeful thinking, but guns need to be totally taken off the streets and out of peoples homes. Society would be safer without them. And, if no one has a gun, no one needs a gun.

    No MohaI0v35

  • Assault weapons are highly dangerous and they are way too powerful to hold onto.

    It is common to see many Americans armed and loaded with the most powerful weapons known to man. These weapons are however far too high grade for any human to hold in their possession. I believe that these weapons are supporting the destruction of mankind and we all should believe in each other, not murder each other. Give peace a chance!

    No waffletime

  • Assault weapons are necessary for self-defense because they will make the other person learn a lesson about committing crime.

    I believe that assault weapons are necessary for self-defense because if you get robbed, you will not be a happy person. For this reason, the person would rather carry around the weapons to protect themselves. However, if they do get robbed, they would also get in trouble for carrying the weapon unless the person has a license. Also, if the robber gets introduced to the weapon, they will never again rob anyone.

    No N34rIyGaIv
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Should assault weapons be allowed in the United States as means of allowing individuals to defend themselves?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource