DETAILS
Should semi-automatic rifles be banned?

On March 24, 2018, thousands of people gathered in Washington, D.C. and in cities throughout the United States at March for Our Lives to protest gun violence and to show their support for increased gun regulation. Many people at these marches were also advocating for increased gun regulation, including things like increased mental health checks and a waiting period between the purchasing and taking possession of a gun. One of the most popular proposals advocated by the protesters is a ban on all semi-automatic rifles.

Those against the ban believe it is a violation of their Second Amendment rights. Those in favor believe that the ban would help prevent mass shootings from taking place.

What do you think? Should semi-automatic rifles be banned?

Current Standings:
Yes: 30%
No: 70%
  • Robert from Indiana

    In the debate over gun control, many have correctly pointed out the arbitrary nature of proposed bans on semiautomatic rifles (often vaguely defined as “assault weapons”). It’s a category of weapon generally defined by their intimidating appearance and the roles they’ve played in some of the most horrific, headline-grabbing mass school shootings of recent memory. However, as gut-wrenching as these events may be, they constitute a tiny fraction of gun deaths. For any significant reduction in the U.S.’s gun violence epidemic, a total semiautomatic weapons ban must be enacted- including handguns.
    The vast majority of gun homicides in America are perpetuated with the use of handguns- 68.5% of firearm murder victims in 2014, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program. These are not the mass shooting victims that public attention has been focused on- these are mostly young, black men killed in episodes of “street violence” (gang violence, drug killings, and arguments, as defined by the New Orleans Police Department). Additionally, 54% of mass shootings (incidents involving at least four firearm deaths) are connected to domestic violence, with many victims being children. These murders exist on a relatively smaller scale and have been embedded in the American psyche as common occurrences, and thus don’t draw as much attention as large-scale shootings- despite their vastly higher frequencies. Despite this, they must be brought under the umbrella of gun-control efforts and legislation- without a semiautomatic weapons ban that includes handguns, a multitude of lives that could have been saved will be stopped short.
    Handgun bans and restrictions have been effective in the instances they’ve been enacted before. One such instance is Washington D.C.’s 1976 handgun ban (declared unconstitutional in the Heller decision of 2008). Although its effectiveness is often obscured by the surge of murder rates during the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s and the proximity of nearby states lacking handgun bans, the law was shown in 1991 by researchers at the University of Maryland to have corresponded with a drop in homicides not seen elsewhere. If done on a national level, similar legislation would see its effects multiplied and deaths prevented. This sort of nationwide regulation has been achieved in Australia, a country gun-control proponents already often point to. Since the 1996 National Firearms Agreement, handguns in Australia have been regulation as Category H weapons- subject to some of the most stringent requirements for ownership. Handgun owners must show active membership in a recognized pistol club- first through a six-month period of only using club-owned weapons, and later by participating in mandatory minimum amounts of target shooting matches each year. Handgun magazine capacity and bullet caliber are also strictly limited to ten rounds and nine millimeters, respectively. If implemented in the U.S., similar regulations could provide American citizens with the safety currently enjoyed by Australians.
    Large-scale mass shootings occupy most of the attention of gun-control proponents, and with good reason- they’re horrible tragedies that can and should be prevented. However, that cannot take away from the statistical preponderance of non-“assault” weapons deaths. Handguns are involved far more often than other firearms in gun homicides, and should be respectively prioritized by advocates and legislators. Without also banning semiautomatic handguns and addressing the core of the U.S. gun violence epidemic in the push to prevent mass shootings, deaths will continue at their current accelerated rate- and any gun-control victory will be a hollow one.

    [read less]

    In the debate over gun control, many have correctly pointed out the arbitrary nature of proposed bans on semiautomatic rifles (often vaguely defined a…

    [read more]
    5
    • Obel from Ohio

      People always blame the gun for gun violence. And I see it as people need to realize it’s the person not the gun yes it’s a sad situation and nobody likes it. But I don’t have a bunch to say but people need to understand it’s not the gun it’s the way it’s used and it’ll never be changed if we dint change the way people are in this world and it’s ridiculous, that our country has came to this.

      [read less]

      People always blame the gun for gun violence. And I see it as people need to realize it’s the person not the gun yes it’s a sad situation and nobody l…

      [read more]
      0
  • Parker from Illinois

    We don’t need a semi auto-matic weapon for self defense. We don’t need one to hunt either. The only reason to have a semi auto-matic weapon is to assault and kill people.

    2
    • Gavin from California

      There are new developments that Police can put onto guns that fire a large steel pellet instead of a bullet, drastically increasing survivability. It is the future.

      0
    • Joshua from Arkansas

      If I do recall their are competitors that shoot these semi-automatic rifles, it’s not like they should be banned just because a couple of people did bad things with them and I believe that if the parents noticed and just kept the guns out of children’s way than their would be a decrease in suicide caused by guns. It is also your right as a U.S citizen to own firearms no matter the type of firearm.

      [read less]

      If I do recall their are competitors that shoot these semi-automatic rifles, it’s not like they should be banned just because a couple of people did…

      [read more]
      0
  • Mira from Georgia

    I don’t understand why everyday citizens would need to own semi-automatic rifles. People who are against gun control will say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. However, it will take a long time for us as a nation to tackle all of the issues behind the gun violence epidemic, so for now the best choice is to enact stricter gun control laws.

    [read less]

    I don’t understand why everyday citizens would need to own semi-automatic rifles. People who are against gun control will say “guns don’t kill people,…

    [read more]
    1
    • Max from California

      It doesn’t matter who kills the gun is still used.

      0
  • Austin from New Hampshire

    Guns dont kill people its the people with the guns that do

    1
    • James from Colorado

      That’s a very simplistic reply. Its the people who don’t have that moral mechanism of “Thou shalt not kill” ingrained in their upbringing who are the ones who kill indiscriminately. Criminals will always find a way to murder, but you would disarm those who are neither inclined to, or will take a life except in self defense.

      [read less]

      That’s a very simplistic reply. Its the people who don’t have that moral mechanism of “Thou shalt not kill” ingrained in their upbringing who are the…

      [read more]
      0
    • Victoria from New York

      Thank you, Austin, for summing this up so simply.

      Sarah, the gun can’t be responsible. Are you saying you would only blame the person for murder if they strangled someone, thus using their own body? But if so, would you say it is their hands’, but not the person’s, fault?

      The decision to kill someone is exactly that–a decision. The gun, knife, scissors, gas, etc. cannot make that decision. Only the person can; it is the murderer who is responsible for his crime.

      [read less]

      Thank you, Austin, for summing this up so simply.

      Sarah, the gun can’t be responsible. Are you saying you would only blame the person for murder i…

      [read more]
      0
    • bailey from New Hampshire

      yes.

      0
    • Gareth from New Hampshire

      Very true

      0
    • Louis from New Hampshire

      amen brother

      0
    • leah from New Hampshire

      If the people did not have the guns nobody would die from them though.

      0
    • Sarah from New Hampshire

      But it is the gun that does the work of killing people. All we do is load and pull the trigger. Yes, it is the person who decides to kill people, but it is still the gun doing the work.

      [read less]

      But it is the gun that does the work of killing people. All we do is load and pull the trigger. Yes, it is the person who decides to kill people, but …

      [read more]
      0
    • Jack from New Hampshire

      This is very true and this is a very well written paragraph

      0
  • Kevin from Ohio

    Gun control does not mean someone going door to door taking away everyone’s guns. Rather, gun control means putting limits and regulations on guns, and these regulations are needed yesterday. The government will never make owning guns illegal; however, the government should introduce restrictions on the types of guns that Americans can own. Which type of gun was used to kill 59 people in Las Vegas, 49 in Orlando, 32 at Virginia Tech, 27 at Sutherland Springs Church, 27 at Sandy Hook, and now 17 at Parkland? A semi-automatic rifle. This weapon in not for hunting, it’s for killing. The semi-automatic rifle shoots “three times faster” (Vomiero Paragraph 3), and inflicts a significant amount of more damage as compared to a regular pistol. If the shooter in Las Vegas did not have a semi-automatic rifle, 59 people would not be dead and 400 would not have been wounded. The numbers of dead and wounded would have been a fraction of what they were. Some argue that making semi-automatic rifles illegal will only allow “the bad guys on the streets” to own semi-automatic guns illegally and will not allow law-abiding American citizens to protect themselves. First, the protection argument seems to be just another excuse. If you need an AR-15 to protect yourself, then you seriously need to work on your aim, and further, these circumstances for protection are very rare. Surely, you can protect yourself with a gun that does not shoot up to 120 rounds in one minute and is capable of being fully automatic? Is your right to own a cool, fast-shooting gun more important than a student’s rights to live? And, if our cops do not even own these weapons when out on duty “protecting” the citizens and and themselves, then what reasons do citizens have to own semi-automatic rifles? The argument that only “the bad guys” will have these dangerous semi-automatic rifles has been proven wrong. In the 1990s, Australia had a huge mass shooting problem. The government of Australia banned semi-automatic rifles, and now Australia is one of the safest countries in the world. Australia has not had a mass shooting since this ban was put in place. So, the less guns on the streets, the less murders by guns. Some may say that it is unconstitutional to take away the right to have these war machines, and that we cannot change a constitutional amendment. Consider for a moment that the 2nd amendment was instituted in the 1700s. At that time, our country’s problems were wild animals and foreign countries, not murderers and mentally insane people. Our founding fathers made the Constitution and Bill of Rights and predicted they would only last 200 years, as our country would get more innovative and would need more laws. The laws should have changed as our gun industry advanced. Yes, you should still have the right to bear arms, but you should not have the right to own a gun that can shoot hundreds of people in less than a few minutes. The word amendment means “change”, so it is actually possible to change an amendment. The worst part is that anyone can buy accessories to add to their guns to make them fully automatic. Automatic guns are illegal, but people can still make their weapons automatic with no laws in place to prevent this from happening. Americans have no need to own semi-automatic rifles, extremely dangerous weapons that can inflict massive destruction. We should keep these weapons in the hands of our military troops, not the hands of our citizens.

    [read less]

    Gun control does not mean someone going door to door taking away everyone’s guns. Rather, gun control means putting limits and regulations on guns,…

    [read more]
    0
  • Max from California

    These tragedies cannot be allowed to repeat because people are willing to ignore the purpose of a weapon which is to kill. The bill already has 150 supporters

    0
  • Humzah from California

    Semi automatic rifles have the purpose of killing, not self defense. There’s no need for a Semi-Automatic rifle, unless you’re in the military.

    0
  • Alex from California

    There is absolutely no need for the average person to get ahold of an automatic assault rifle. People do not need that type of weapon. They are clearly dangerous and people don’t know how to handle them.

    [read less]

    There is absolutely no need for the average person to get ahold of an automatic assault rifle. People do not need that type of weapon. They are clearl…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from California

    Yes semi automatic rifiles should be banned. Because they are simply unnecessary. People do not need to own this powerful of a gun to protect themselves. It shouldnt matter if “The issue is not the loopholes. It’s the problem that once you start looking at how easy it is to get around it, you would literally have to ban every semi-automatic rifle that’s sold” becuase there is loopholes in everything but it will help eliminate these type murders in our future. It is good and promising however that “Rubio, meanwhile, said at the event that he would support raising the minimum age requirement to purchase a rifle, something that other lawmakers have signaled support for. “

    [read less]

    Yes semi automatic rifiles should be banned. Because they are simply unnecessary. People do not need to own this powerful of a gun to protect themselv…

    [read more]
    0
  • madison from California

    Yes, semi automatic rifles should be banned. There is no need for ordinary people to own guns with “military style features”. They aren’t needed for protection or hunting, so they are not necessary.

    [read less]

    Yes, semi automatic rifles should be banned. There is no need for ordinary people to own guns with “military style features”. They aren’t needed for p…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emma from California

    Semi-automatic guns should be illegal because we have had many shootings especially school shootings and it is time that the government takes matters into their own hands. There is no need for random civilians to be able to access semi automatic rifles, only our armed forces should have the access to semi automatic rifles.

    [read less]

    Semi-automatic guns should be illegal because we have had many shootings especially school shootings and it is time that the government takes matters …

    [read more]
    0
  • Emily from California

    Guns are weapons. The purpose of a weapon is to cause harm or kill another person. I know the person behind the trigger is responsible for any damage done, but would domestic terrorist attacks still happen with a blade? We need to take the first step of banning semi-automatic weapons. With the banning of semi-automatic weapons, we can take the next steps to prevent events of domestic terrorist attacks.

    [read less]

    Guns are weapons. The purpose of a weapon is to cause harm or kill another person. I know the person behind the trigger is responsible for any damage …

    [read more]
    0
  • Emoijah from Florida

    I was 20 minutes away from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High – the site of a local shooting a few months ago. Sometimes, it takes a tragedy so close to make an impact on a person and that person is me. I want to ban all semi-automatic guns because there is no reason an 18 year old should own a semi-automatic gun. You can talk about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment but we’re not banning guns; we want to ban semi-automatic guns which have been used too often in mass shootings. Nikolas Cruz used a semi-automatic and so did many other mass shooters like Adam Lanza who shot up Sandy Hook Elementary back in 2012. Pro-gun debaters argue about their rights for guns and I believe in the 2nd Amendment too. But what I don’t believe in is sitting back and doing nothing after I watched my community shatter because of the recent school shooting. Semi-automatic guns, as senators like Rand Paul have pointed out, are used for games, shooting, and self-defense. A semi-automatic gun is not necessary for self-defense and sometimes things like interests need to be put aside for the sake of people’s lives.

    [read less]

    I was 20 minutes away from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High – the site of a local shooting a few months ago. Sometimes, it takes a tragedy so close to ma…

    [read more]
    0
  • irene from Virginia

    Of course semi-automatic rifles need to be banned to ensure the best quality of safety and stability for the American people. A huge argument for the opposition side is that they are needed for self-defense. But how many average Americans need to defend themselves with semis? A handgun, or pistol is reasonable for self-defense, and is good enough to protect the people.
    A ban on semis does not infringe on American’s right to a gun, as there are plenty other guns than are able to wreck less havoc on a community of innocents, yet are still able to protect sufficiently. While I have already shown that the Second Amendment is not in the way of anti semi legislation, I will go even further to show that the amendment itself is outdated. It was written in a time to allow armed militias to rise up in the case of tyranny. When in the near future of the United States, will there be a tyrant? The answer is, never. Our government was building strongly upon three pillars, not just one, perhaps even four – including the people. On that note, in order to protect the people, semi automatic guns need to be banned.

    [read less]

    Of course semi-automatic rifles need to be banned to ensure the best quality of safety and stability for the American people. A huge argument for the …

    [read more]
    0
  • Shemira from Illinois

    Yes, because they are harmful and people at 18 can go in and buy them. But why do we have to be 21 to purchase alcohol?

    0
  • Zach from New Hampshire

    I think these guns should be banned except for military use, because other than that they do no good things

    0
  • Gareth from New Hampshire

    Semi-automatic rifles should be banned. They should be banned because if a person is mentally unstable, the should not have weapons. And with being able to walk into a store and walk out a few hours later, with a gun, should not be allowed. People should have to go through a mental check and a background check before being able to purchase a weapon. Being able to shoot many rounds a second is not only unreasonable, it is also unnecessary. People do not need to shoot a hundred rounds a minute to kill an animal, therefore, they do not need semi-automatic rifles.

    [read less]

    Semi-automatic rifles should be banned. They should be banned because if a person is mentally unstable, the should not have weapons. And with being ab…

    [read more]
    0
    • Bella from Maine

      Semi automatic weapons do not shoot hundreds of rounds per second you are thinking of a fully automatic weapon. semi automatic weapon reload and are out after 9 rounds most commonly

      [read less]

      Semi automatic weapons do not shoot hundreds of rounds per second you are thinking of a fully automatic weapon. semi automatic weapon reload and are o…

      [read more]
      0
  • Katie from New Hampshire

    Waiting around and not taking a stand will never solve the problem that we all know is going on: innocent lives are being taken for reasons such as immature and twisted people that recently have been using their possessions as a way of injuring others. Everyone is aware of this, it’s no secret, and it could be stopped or at least drastically decreased if we speak up and take away these opportunities to harm innocent people like us every day. It’s simple, ban the semi-automatic guns.

    [read less]

    Waiting around and not taking a stand will never solve the problem that we all know is going on: innocent lives are being taken for reasons such as im…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kendall from New Hampshire

    I normally wouldn’t see it necessary to take away guns, as it violates the 2nd amendment. However, since so many people are killed by guns versus other weapons, to prevent more shootings, guns should be banned.

    [read less]

    I normally wouldn’t see it necessary to take away guns, as it violates the 2nd amendment. However, since so many people are killed by guns versus oth…

    [read more]
    0
    • Emily from California

      I completely agree with you Kendall. I used to agree that firearms are necessary for protection, but guns are becoming the catalyst for domestic terrorist attacks.

      0
  • Sam from New Hampshire

    The US government does not allow the use of automatic guns, so why should semi-automatic ones, that could even be potentially modified to be fully automatic, be legal? It’s not worth risking so many lives just to legalize something that barely has a use in everyday life. If you really need a gun, just get a non-automatic one.

    [read less]

    The US government does not allow the use of automatic guns, so why should semi-automatic ones, that could even be potentially modified to be fully aut…

    [read more]
    0
  • leah from New Hampshire

    These guns are made to kill, and all they do is kill. There are plenty of less dangerous guns out there, and these ones are not even used for hunting because of the damage they cause. America has much too many shootings, especially in proportion to other first-world countries. Yes, guns do not shoot themselves, it takes a human to deliver the shot, but that should not mean anything. Anyone who is against guns understands this. What is important is that guns are so readily available for these shooters, and they use these guns to kill. If we did not have these guns, they would not be shot, because they simply are not there. We could protect all of our citizens, and specifically our students from death if we banned these semi-automatic weapons. Please think about the people, not the sport.

    [read less]

    These guns are made to kill, and all they do is kill. There are plenty of less dangerous guns out there, and these ones are not even used for hunting …

    [read more]
    0
    • Bella from Maine

      Semi Automatic guns are used for hunting. Shotguns are used for waterfowl and many are semi automatic. ps there was a mass stabbing in japan at a school (they banned guns) It wont fix everything.

      [read less]

      Semi Automatic guns are used for hunting. Shotguns are used for waterfowl and many are semi automatic. ps there was a mass stabbing in japan at a scho…

      [read more]
      0
  • Daniel from New Hampshire

    Guns themselves do not kill people. It´s people with guns that do. Semi-automatic weapons have absolutely NO purpose other than to kill humans in large numbers. It is useless for hunting and that is really the only decent purpose for owning a gun other than self-defense, which you would not need a semi-automatic for. They are useless except for the slaughter of other human beings. Other PEOPLE with families, and lives, and jobs, and there is no excuse for murder. Semi-automatic weapons should, in fact, be banned.

    [read less]

    Guns themselves do not kill people. It´s people with guns that do. Semi-automatic weapons have absolutely NO purpose other than to kill humans in lar…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrew from New Hampshire

    Yes, Semi-Automatic guns SHOULD be banned. You might think that the second amendment allows people to own guns, and yes your correct but the goverment still blocks people from buy Automatic guns and other high military standard guns, so it doesnt matter anyways if ban semi-automatic guns. Handguns are enough to worry about rather Semi-Automatic guns that can be modified to be turned into automatic killing machines. Hand guns can not easily be turned into automatic killing machines. Semi-Automatic guns can be used for killing a large amount of people easily by using a ¨pump stock¨ by banning a pump stock, people can still make this gun automatic and kill a large amount of people. Hand guns are all we need, with a hand gun you cant kill as many people as a semi-automatic gun can. Semi-Automatic guns SHOULD be banned and hand guns and a hunting rifle should be the only gun that should be aloud to be bought.

    [read less]

    Yes, Semi-Automatic guns SHOULD be banned. You might think that the second amendment allows people to own guns, and yes your correct but the goverment…

    [read more]
    0
    • Bella from Maine

      Please study Guns before thinking you know what you are talking about. You are saying Semi automatic guns and talking about them like they are a fully automatic gun. and on top of that nearly 90% of handguns are Semi automatic. learn more about guns THEN share your opinions on them DO NOT have an opinion when that opinion is completely uneducated about the subject.

      [read less]

      Please study Guns before thinking you know what you are talking about. You are saying Semi automatic guns and talking about them like they are a fully…

      [read more]
      0
    • Gareth from New Hampshire

      No Mateo, most handguns are not automatic, in fact, most of them are semi-automatic.

      0
    • Mateo from Nevada

      Are most handguns semi-automatic?

      0
  • Mairin from New Hampshire

    Guns kill. Its as simple as that. They were meant for hunting and war. War is dumb, they dont solve any problems and there is loss whether you win or lose. Semi-automatic guns will kill the animals beyond the point were you can use them for food or shelter. So many people die because of guns, and so many people say its the person pulling the trigger, but without the guns there wouldnt be this conversation.

    [read less]

    Guns kill. Its as simple as that. They were meant for hunting and war. War is dumb, they dont solve any problems and there is loss whether you win or …

    [read more]
    0
    • Bella from Maine

      Go educate yourself because you clearly do not know what semi automatic means. Do not post your opinion if you do not even know about it. SEMI AUTO IS NOT FULLY AUTO

      0
    • James from Colorado

      “but without the guns there wouldn’t be this conversation.” No it would be about swords, knives, flamethrowers, and all assorted weaponry. If you think war is dumb, then perhaps you support the genocide of a race due to their religion, class in society, skin color, political beliefs, the color of their eyes and any other reason you want. Had the Greatest generation not gone to war and stayed at home, the Nazis would still be gassing whoever they didn’t agree with because more than likely the Jewish populace of the world would have been eradicated by now. Perhaps even you would’ve been ushered to the door to the “showers” aka gas chamber. Had we not gone to war in Vietnam, the whole of the southern pacific
      Asiatic community would be Communist by now. Had we not gone to war in Desert Storm 1 , Sadam Hussein would’ve started overrunning many others on the Arabian peninsula. Yes you’re correct in saying war is horrible, but it is a necessary evil – or God’s punishment on mankind.

      [read less]

      “but without the guns there wouldn’t be this conversation.” No it would be about swords, knives, flamethrowers, and all assorted weaponry. If you th…

      [read more]
      0
    • Sam from New Hampshire

      I concur.

      0
  • Jack from New Hampshire

    Guns are bad and they kill people and we dont want people to die, unless they are bad people. If they are bad people then you should use a pistol to injur them so they will learn their lesson while not getting killed

    [read less]

    Guns are bad and they kill people and we dont want people to die, unless they are bad people. If they are bad people then you should use a pistol to i…

    [read more]
    0
    • Bella from Maine

      Guns are not bad their beholder may be.

      0
    • Jack from New Hampshire

      This point does not solve the standing opinion that guns are bad. You’re just shouting about the old; “well if I have a gun it will ‘teach them a lesson”, and this rule that you support will apply to you too, so don’t jump to ideas to quickly. Other than the first two sentences, your point is valid.

      [read less]

      This point does not solve the standing opinion that guns are bad. You’re just shouting about the old; “well if I have a gun it will ‘teach them a less…

      [read more]
      0
  • owen from New Hampshire

    yes they should guns are bad and we should destroy ALL OF THEM which result in less violence.

    0
    • Arwyn from New Hampshire

      Well said. Bella if criminals had any guns once they were caught we could destroy the guns and even if we didn’t destroy ALL guns we could make it harder to purchase them. So next time think before you criticize someone.

      [read less]

      Well said. Bella if criminals had any guns once they were caught we could destroy the guns and even if we didn’t destroy ALL guns we could make it har…

      [read more]
      0
    • Bella from Maine

      In reality ALL will never be destroyed the criminals will always have them and they will have nothing to fear, Think out your “solution”

      0
  • Gabriella from New Hampshire

    Guns cause death so why do we even need them?

    0
    • zach from New Hampshire

      cars kill more people a year then guns but we stiil consider cars
      essential. so why not ban cars

      0
  • Andrew from Tennessee

    A gun is useless without a finger to pull the trigger. The finger that is used to pull the trigger is useless without a brain to tell it to do so. The brain just like a muscle is trained. In our current society we glorify violence and the “locker room” atmosphere. So let’s recap? Thus far we have discussed how the gun without it’s human counter part is useless as the chaff in the wind. A gun can not operate without a human to point down range. Now thus far the gun itself hasn’t done anything but the human has. The human has picked up said weapon and used its finger to pull the trigger. So if the gun is used kills or causes harm it’s the human who is at fault.

    [read less]

    A gun is useless without a finger to pull the trigger. The finger that is used to pull the trigger is useless without a brain to tell it to do so. The…

    [read more]
    0
    • James from Colorado

      You need to go back and study the Holocaust and what happened immediately preceding it in the last years of the Weimar Republic. You are doomed to repeat history if you don’t learn from it.

      [read less]

      You need to go back and study the Holocaust and what happened immediately preceding it in the last years of the Weimar Republic. You are doomed to re…

      [read more]
      0
  • Julielle from New Hampshire

    semi automatic rifles have one purpose, to kill in mass numbers. you can not hunt for it would obliterate the animal, you can protect youself with a normal gun, and your “fun” is in no way more important then peoples and kids lives. People are dying and others are too obsessed with themselves to care. Other countrys have had tradgedys such as parkland and in responce banned the things killing people and the rates went down. Some may argue that guns dont kill people, people kill people, but those those people could not kill as many with a butterknife.

    [read less]

    semi automatic rifles have one purpose, to kill in mass numbers. you can not hunt for it would obliterate the animal, you can protect youself with a n…

    [read more]
    0
    • Bella from Maine

      You are thinking of a fully automatic gun, Semi automatic shotguns are used extremely often for hunting. Please educate yourself.

      0
    • Angel from New Hampshire

      It’s not the guns that kill, but the people controlling it.

      0
    • Alissa from New Hampshire

      No! I accidentally voted no! I meant to upvote this, well said

      0
    • Elli from New Hampshire

      Good job julielle!

      0
  • Tyler from New Hampshire

    Semi-automatic weapons should not be banned, restrictions can be put on purchasing semi automatic weapons however i think people should still be able to buy on.

    0
  • Hannah from Kentucky

    Semi-automatic guns should be banned. Their purpose is simple: kill as many people in a short amount of time as you can. These guns were designed for war. Our streets, schools, and communities are not warzones and these guns have no place being here. A regular citizen should not be able to purchase and own a weapon specifically designed to kill enemies in war. War is the singular reason these guns exist. War does not exist in everyday communities and semi-automatic guns have no place being in a place that is supposed to be peaceful.

    [read less]

    Semi-automatic guns should be banned. Their purpose is simple: kill as many people in a short amount of time as you can. These guns were designed for …

    [read more]
    0
  • Maddie from Kentucky

    I ABSOLUTELY think that semi-automatic weapons need to be banned because there is just no logical reason for anyone to own one. There are plenty of guns which are not at all automatic which can do the basic things guns should be used for such as hunting animals to use for food. Anyone who is a hunter most likely has pretty accurate aim and does not need multiple bullets right in a row in order to make a kill. However, for crazed murderers, semi-automatic weapons make killing people a whole lot easier for them. They can go into a crowd or busy building and just begin firing randomly and they eventually will hit and kill some people. That’s assuming that they have horrible aim, though. If a murderer is skilled with a gun, semi-automatic weapons will only allow them to do much more damage. Banning semi-automatic weapons is the first step in the process to lowering gun violence rates within our country. If lawmakers see rates begin to lower due to this ban, they will be encouraged to put even stricter bans into place which will hopefully someday make gun violence obsolete.

    [read less]

    I ABSOLUTELY think that semi-automatic weapons need to be banned because there is just no logical reason for anyone to own one. There are plenty of g…

    [read more]
    0
  • Anna from Illinois

    Semi-automatic rifles should be banned in the United States. Although many good people are in possession of these weapons and use semi-automatic rifles safely as a hobby, there are too many people easily gaining access to these weapons. Banning semi-automatic rifles will not eliminate all gun violence, but it will reduce the number of mass shootings since the semi-automatic rifle is a commonly used weapon in mass shootings, and other accessories can be bought to make it fully automatic. Many responsible people use the semi-automatic rifle for recreational and safety purposes only, but having a weapon that is used to kill multiple people at a time can put people in an even more dangerous situation and banning the rifle would make American people, especially students, feel safer. Most students in American schools are scared for their lives because school shootings have become so common. Semi-automatic rifles allow mentally ill people to kill others, to take lives, and to permanently scar a community forever. Banning semi-automatic rifles would help ensure the safety of the American students and people. When it comes to people’s lives or a semi-automatic rifle, the choice shouldn’t be very hard.

    [read less]

    Semi-automatic rifles should be banned in the United States. Although many good people are in possession of these weapons and use semi-automatic rifle…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jon from Ohio

    In America, we should always be able to have guns. The right to own a firearm should never be taken away. But this does not mean that every person in the United States should be able to go to their local grocery store and buy a weapon that could easily end the lives of dozens of people. With that said, people should still be allowed to own handguns, shotguns, rifles, and other firearms that cannot easily kill many people. There is no situation where the average American Citizen needs to own a semi-automatic assault rifle. These weapons were designed for killing people, but not on the streets. They should be used in combat only, not as an everyday weapon. Summing this all up, Americans should have the right to own firearms, but not assault rifles.

    [read less]

    In America, we should always be able to have guns. The right to own a firearm should never be taken away. But this does not mean that every person in …

    [read more]
    0
    • Bella from Maine

      Dear Jon,90% of hand guns shotguns and probably 35% of rifles are SEMI AUTOMATIC you are referring to a FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifle, with that being said please educate yourself before sharing your opinions, have a lovely day sweetheart.

      [read less]

      Dear Jon,90% of hand guns shotguns and probably 35% of rifles are SEMI AUTOMATIC you are referring to a FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifle, with that bein…

      [read more]
      0
    • zach from New Hampshire

      grocery stores dont carry guns

      0
  • Adrian from Ohio

    Yes

    0
    • Banana from New Hampshire

      Nice

      0
    • Jack from New Hampshire

      Well said, I agree with your decision

      0
  • Dolores from New Jersey

    Many people want to own one or more guns. I believe that is perfectly fine. Some people choose to own a gun to protect themselves and their families from harm. That is a valid argument, and I support it. However, I do not believe that any civilian needs a semi-automatic rifle in order to do so. If you are simply protecting yourself from the average crook or criminal, a semi-automatic rifle is not necessary. If you are in so much danger that you need one of these weapons, you should move to a safer location or be under the protection of police or a similar security force.
    Similarly, hunters often own guns. I do not think they require semi-automatic rifles either since such guns are not necessary to hunt average targets such as deer, birds, small game, or even large game. Overall, I cannot think of a valid reason to sufficiently support the need for semi-automatic rifles among civilians, so I believe they should be banned.

    [read less]

    Many people want to own one or more guns. I believe that is perfectly fine. Some people choose to own a gun to protect themselves and their families f…

    [read more]
    0
    • Bella from Maine

      Hello Dolores, Semi automatic guns actually are necessary for hunting birds, you use a shotgun (many are semiautomatic) You like many others are probably Thinking of Fully automatic weapons.

      [read less]

      Hello Dolores, Semi automatic guns actually are necessary for hunting birds, you use a shotgun (many are semiautomatic) You like many others are proba…

      [read more]
      0
    • zach from New Hampshire

      a handgun is a semi-auto but those are fine

      0
  • Kaitlyn from Colorado

    Semi-automatic rifles serve no purpose and should have no place in a society whose individuals constantly fight for gun reforms and a reduction in violence. Although countless voices have been heard and even supported throughout the nation, violence continues to infiltrate our communities, businesses, and school systems through the use of semi-automatic rifles.

    [read less]

    Semi-automatic rifles serve no purpose and should have no place in a society whose individuals constantly fight for gun reforms and a reduction in vio…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tessa from Utah

    I Don’t Want More Students and in all People getting shot and having their Fam. Go through the pain of losing a Child, Sibling, Or Spouse. Most People who say no haven’t had a loved one get shot or themselves had a near death experience, Arms Are For Hugging, Not Having Open Fire on Children

    [read less]

    I Don’t Want More Students and in all People getting shot and having their Fam. Go through the pain of losing a Child, Sibling, Or Spouse. Most People…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alaina from Mississippi

    We do not need semi-automatic rifles. We need gun control. We need a system to stop those with a criminal history or a history of mental illness from getting their hands on these weapons. There have been too many deaths from semi-automatic weapons, be it rifle or not. We, as a country, as people, as ourselves, do not need these weapons because they are a danger to society as a whole.
    Additionally, the Second Amendment says, “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.” This does not mean ‘we have the right to have guns’. This means we have the right to bear arms against the government. This is to secure the freedom of a state, as mentioned in the amendment itself. We have no need for weapons of this kind.

    [read less]

    We do not need semi-automatic rifles. We need gun control. We need a system to stop those with a criminal history or a history of mental illness from …

    [read more]
    0
    • Donald from Arizona

      So, basically, what you are saying is “we need a police state dictatorship,” right? What kind of ‘system’ are you referring to? Background checks? Are you aware that since they were instituted in 1994 that not one crime has been prevented, and not one criminal has been prevented access to a firearm? Are you aware that not only do background checks convert our right to keep and bear arms into a revocable government-issued privilege, they also require us to give up our 4th Amendment right to be secure from search, our 5th Amendment right to due process before our rights can be taken from us, our 9th Amendment right to be secure from having to give up a right in order to exercise a right, and our 10th Amendment right to be secure from the federal exercise of authority not delegated to the federal government? Are you willing to give up every right you have to be free of government tyranny in order to give up your right to keep and bear arms? Might want to think about that a while, eh?

      [read less]

      So, basically, what you are saying is “we need a police state dictatorship,” right? What kind of ‘system’ are you referring to? Background checks? …

      [read more]
      0
  • Olivia from North Carolina

    The Second Amendment is stated IN FULL as follows:

    “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.”

    To understand what this means, we first must evaluate the experiences they encountered during the Revolutionary War. While fighting, the colonists were at a loss for weaponry because British merchants refused to sell guns to rebels and revolutionists. Many requests from the Continental Congress also were not fulfilled to provide them weaponry.

    They state that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, so they allow the citizens to bear arms. Just as they did with many of the other Amendments (freedom of religion, no soldier quartering, right to petition the government, etc.), they were trying to combat repeating the mistakes of the British government that began the revolution in the first place. They were making sure in the case of another war that their militia would have the weaponry they need to defend their state.

    Another thing that must be considered is the circumstances of war and militia in the 1780s. The colonists were still being watched by the army of Great Britain, as they were still a territory and part of the country. The colonists on their own did not have a large, well-funded, and organized military that the British government had. When wartime came, they were on their own. The militia were generally made up by the common man: farmers, tailors, smiths, etc. This included the minute men, or citizens who were prepared to leave their home and/or place of work in a minute’s notice. If they were told to go out and fight, no matter the circumstances or hour, they immediately picked up their gun and ran to the battle site.

    While the United States was still being founded, the Articles of Confederation gave the federal government absolutely no power. In fact, John Hancock, the original President of the United States under the Articles, never showed up to his job because there was nothing for him to do. A large problem was that the federal government were not allowed to tax the states and citizens. This is again an example of trying to fix (or over-correct) the faults of the British government that started the revolution (extremely high taxes set by a single executive with absolute power, King George III). The federal government had no power to have a military, so even if they had had money to fund a military, they could not have made one.

    While our Founding Fathers were meeting in secret to form the U.S. Constitution, they were still being regulated under the Articles of Confederation until its signing into effect. However, these regulations put the national government at loss of money, as not only did they have to begin the process of taxing citizens, but the colonists were incredibly angry that the government could now tax them. Some people and states took longer to come around than others depending on their political beliefs.

    During the national government was trying to collect taxes, they knew they could not go without any form of security while they were still organizing a federal military. This was the thought process behind the Second Amendment. They could not leave their citizens defenseless, so they put this right in to ensure that the militia and minute men could defend themselves at this time of government weakness. This is why is is stated as, “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.” The national government wanted to give the people the right to defend itself when the federal government could not, to ensure that the militia had access to weaponry in time of war, and to combat their fears of a monarchy.

    We also must consider the technology of the time. Semi-automatic weapons were not invented until 100 years after the Revolutionary War ended. They were not a consideration at this time. None of our Founding Fathers lived to see its invention.

    This begin said, I believe this does not give the people individual rights to own a gun for personal use. This Amendment in its full text (not specific parts picked and chosen) is stating that people have the right to own a gun as a method of forming a militia to defend the security of its state. As immature as this next argument sounds, why would they include anything about the militia if they wanted everyone for any reason to own a gun? The Founding Fathers were very straight forward in many and most of the Amendments. The thought process and debate that went into these was intense, not loosely written for no purpose. They would not have included a statement about the necessity of a militia if they did not mean it, especially with all the circumstances I discussed earlier fresh in their minds and lives.

    People do not have the right to own a gun for personal use. This strictly gives members of the militia to own arms so they may defend the security of their state. My personal choice to hunt or shoot an intruder does not compromise state or national security, therefore it is not covered by the Second Amendment. The government has the right to limit civilians’ gun allowances and usage.

    American gun violence is thirty times that of the UK. 60% of murders in the United States are by firearm, six times that of the UK. The United Kingdom has strict gun legislation that keeps their gun violence rate dramatically lower than the US’s gun violence rate. Many law enforcement officers do not carry weapons there. To save the American people, it is logical and allowed to ban semi-automatic weapons

    [read less]

    The Second Amendment is stated IN FULL as follows:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the peo…

    [read more]
    0
    • Victoria from New York

      Actually, Olivia, there is no difference depending on what kind of gun would be banned. Whether or not you are more scared of a certain type of firearm than others does not change the fact that firearms are tools. They cannot and do not kill on their own. It is deranged people who kill, and deranged people, not law-abiding firearms owners, who should be controlled.

      Yes, the states who abridge their citizens’ rights to keep and bear any type of firearms are disobeying the Constitution! The only reason they are getting away with it is because the mass hysteria used has kept those who are elected to defend our Constitution too spineless to actually stand up for what it means. Furthermore, several states are violating their state Constitutions by so doing.

      Further, the argument you are returning to that firearms are allowed only for the militia makes no sense. Who is the militia? The people! Now, why would the Founding Fathers say that citizens only have the right to use firearms as part of the militia? If that is what they said, they would be telling the citizens that they had no right to feed their families through hunting or protect their families through self-defense. They would be saying that citizens have a responsibility to let their families starve or be murdered. Such makes no sense. Whether it is an invading army or a burglar, protecting yourself and your family is just that–saving lives.

      Cleared of historical argument or statistics which I am sure you and I could argue about for weeks, there are simple facts which show why semi-automatics should not be banned. (1.) As I said, they do not kill on their own. (2.) The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is by having on the scene a good guy with a gun, who is often carrying a semi-automatic. And (3.) common law and our Constitution say that a crime is only if one is hurting someone else (other than in protecting himself); hunting and exercising self-defense with a semi-automatic does not hurt anyone and therefore using them, let alone owning them, cannot be a crime.

      What we need to do is start taking the value of human life seriously. Reimpose the death penalty for murderers, pay attention to social media (this is allowable since it is public space) when people talk about intending to kill, allow teachers with the proper training to carry firearms in school to protect their students, and most of all, stop blaming and restricting the legal firearms owners who are this nation’s best defense.

      [read less]

      Actually, Olivia, there is no difference depending on what kind of gun would be banned. Whether or not you are more scared of a certain type of firea…

      [read more]
      0
    • Angel from Illinois

      The biggest issue with this is that there were advancements in gun technology that the founding fathers were aware of. The puckle gun, the pepperbox revolver etc. They were even favored. Plus a semi-automatic is simply defined as one bullet per pull of the trigger, when you disclude the pepperbox revolver which fired multiple rounds per pull of the trigger, that was pretrt much every gun that they had available. Now what I believe you ment to say in stating semi-automatics were invented 100 years after the revolutionary war is that the self-loading system hadn’t come about until then which would be much more accurate but still beside the point at hand. The founding father were aware od technological advancements. The 2nd Amendment was not put in place for a militia only. Yes the threat of a tyrannical government was looming then but that threat never leaves. The belief that it won’t happen is the same belief that allows dictators to disarm citizens and come to power. John Adams stated in defense of the constitution, “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in orivate self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constituion, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissilution of the government.” John Adams was also written a letter about whether or not ship canons were covered by the second amendment. The word “keep” was also widely used as a way to describe personal ownership at the time. Now that I spoke in the constitutional part, ill speak of statistics. Rifles are only responsible for 3.8% of gun murders in the United States, Handguns in the high 90s. Most gun murders (around 80% ) are drug or gang related. Around 93% of murderers are not the legal owner of the firearm in the first place. A mass shooting is rougly defined as 4 or more injured. In fact according to research done by statista.com handguns are responsible for the vast majority of mass shootings. After the UK banned guns crime rate actually spiked and didn’t see a significant decrease for a while. Crime overall has actually risen in the UK after the gun ban especially amongst rapes, terror attacks, and assault. The United Kingdom is a horrible country to compare the United States to. The act of disarming citizens on the governments part is a vast attack on personal freedoms and is the exact opposite of what the founding fathers intended, and will only lead to bad things as we have seen in Australia when gun crime spiked after their first ban forcing them to do another buy back and then give amnesty to illegal guns in 2018. In Japan were we see a police state were Law enforcement record and have control over everything making people too afraid to step out of line, and in more extreme cases we have seen what happened in Nazi germany when Hitler disarmed all of the citizens who would oppose him. Also this may be entirely anecdotal, but I live in Chicago where we see very strict gun laws yet terrible gun crime, very few gun murders are done with rifles. Seeing as how this is such a low number even at a country-wide level, please explain to me how banning the weapon that it only 3.8% responsible for the murders is a good idea.

      [read less]

      The biggest issue with this is that there were advancements in gun technology that the founding fathers were aware of. The puckle gun, the pepperbox r…

      [read more]
      0
    • Elijah from Wisconsin

      It is important to distinguish a militia nowadays to a militia back then. Back then, militias were mostly privately owned. The intention of the Founding Fathers was to deter the government from becoming extremely powerful. For example, the Minute Men were able to successful deter the British Government. The United States Military is very different then the militias at the time of the Founding Fathers. The entire point of the 2nd Amendment was to arm the citizens to rebel the government. As history has shown, the government can use the military to oppress the people. The interpretation of arming the citizens fall in line with the Constitution. The fist ten amendments are part of the Bill of Rights, which is focused on individual rights. The interpretation that the 2nd Amendment that the States need there own militias is flawed. The 10th Amendment already gives the States the power there own military. At the time of the Constitution, the militias were privately owned.

      [read less]

      It is important to distinguish a militia nowadays to a militia back then. Back then, militias were mostly privately owned. The intention of the Foundi…

      [read more]
      0
    • James from Colorado

      In Scalia’s view, the text and history of the amendment’s operative clause (i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) is controlling. “The people” refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset, such as the militia; the phrase to “keep and bear arms” means to have weapons and carry them, and not just in a military context; and “the right of the people” refers to a preexisting right. Scalia reasons that these textual elements show that the amendment “guarantee(s) the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” and that the amendment’s text implicitly recognizes the preexistence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed” (Id., at 2790-2797). Congress merely codified a widely recognized right; it did not create a new right (Id., at 2797).

      The excerpt above was from the majority decision by SCOTUS in the Heller vs. D.C. court case. The District of Columbia was saying the same bunk that you’re saying about it being for Militia only and not for individuals. As you can see, you are in error. IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!

      [read less]

      In Scalia’s view, the text and history of the amendment’s operative clause (i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infri…

      [read more]
      0
    • Olivia from North Carolina

      Takoda, thank you for your comment! I understand why you disagree with my interpretation. I’m going to explain to you my thought process for that interpretation just so you know where I was coming from. I am an English nerd; I have always been the kid to write twice the assigned word limit, I cry when I feel like I can’t compress my writing anymore (it physically hurts me to do so), everyone always comes to me to edit their papers, and I got a 35 on my English ACT test (on my first try). I’m not attempting to brag, but I feel it is important to express my knowledge of the English language in order to have my evidence be considered as credible. When I read the Second Amendment, I naturally used grammar to decide what it meant.

      A complete thought and sentence is made of a subject, verb, and complete thought. The reason I do not see “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” as its own clause is because it is not a complete thought. The first part of this part of the sentence is “A well regulated Milita.” What follows is simply and expansion of that. It is explaning the relevance of a well regulated militia. The style it is written in could also replace the commas around “being necessary to the security of a free state” with EM dashes or parenthesis. “A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State” is not complete. It still does not give an action to what a well regulated Militia means or is doing. If it said “A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state,” then it would be complete because “is” is a verb. “Being” is a noun, and without a verb, it is not a complete sentence. The phrase on its own does not make any sense. It doesn’t complete what “a well regulated Militia” does. If it said “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, gives individuals the right to bear Arms,” it would make sense because “gives” is a verb. It’s an action, which is needed to complete the sentence.

      However, when the whole sentence is taken together (note that the whole thing is one sentence as well), the sentence is complete. “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.” Granted it is written in a different way than we would write it now, the basic grammar rule I stated applied then as well. “Militia” is the subject, and “be” is the verb because “keep” and “bear” (also verbs) are talking about “Arms.” The phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” does not contain a verb at all. “Regulated” on its own would be a verb, but the use of “well” (an adverb) before it turns “well regulated” into an adjective itself, not an action. Now we would see it written as “well-regulated,” and the hyphon was added to show the connection of the words as a single part of speech. Also, the verb to complete the thought always has to come after the subject. The “right” is the indirect subject, so it is a subject, but it is not the focus of the sentence because it is not the initial thing being described.

      I am sorry if that was at all confusing. I am not the best at explaining things, so if you feel it does not make sense, then I would suggest asking an English teacher to review the grammar with you. A person who was educated specifically to teach and explain grammar to students will do a better job at explaining it.

      I am curious as to what makes you believe they are two separate thoughts, so I look forward to a response possibly explaining your grammatical thought process behind the separation of the sentence.

      [read less]

      Takoda, thank you for your comment! I understand why you disagree with my interpretation. I’m going to explain to you my thought process for that inte…

      [read more]
      0
    • Payton from Wisconsin

      Its quite clear that the second amendment was put in place to keep the threat of tyranny away. We can see this if we look at documents like The Fedralist Papers (No. 46).
      “Also, why in the world would a government supply citizens with firearms so that any angry citizen can attack government officials based on dramaticized media and speculation?”
      I see your point here, but I want to ask a counter question. Why would the people of the US give up their firearms, knowing that governments have grow tyrannnical in the past? I agree with you in the sense that the it seems absurd that the government would allow a mad citizen to attack them, but I have to disagree with, again, my fundamental premise that the basis of the 2nd amendment is about keeping the Governemt in check. The Government would allow citizens to keep and bear arms, knowing that there will be threats to them from outside sources, because the founders believed that the people need to be able to defend themselves.
      On that note, you deny my statement about guns being a factor in keeping the government in control. I was unclear in my terms here, and I apologize. When I say in check, I am directly conflating that with keeping the government from growing into tyranny. That is the ideological purpose, and if we want to argue if that would be effective (e.i if the American people could resist the military) then we certainly can.
      “And you claim that semi-automatic RIFLES are low percentage, but you completely left out hand guns, which are much more likely to be taken for shootings because they can be discreetly carried while rifles cannot.” Yes, thank you for gettinf my point. This debate is talking only on the topic of rifles, which is why I didn’t talk on them for very long. My point with this statement was that if the argument is that guns threaten the lives of Americans, rifles are an exetremly low percentage of gun deaths. Banning them would save minimal lives, so if the argument is regulation on the basis of saving lives, we should look to ban handguns as well.
      Onto your last paragraph. “Just because something is hard doesn’t mean we do nothing at all.” I completely agree, but I think where we conflct is what we should do. I am for better mental screening and backround checks on all guns, along with mandatory safe storage of said guns. Your argument in this paragraph makes it seem like there are a huge number of people who are dying because of rifles, which is not true at all. Banning semi-automatic rifles would have little impact on the rate of gun violence.
      On a side note, guns save lives more than they take them, so why are we looking to do a blanket ban of a tool that saves more than they hurt. Instead we look at the specific and underlying problems. People will choose to do harm any way, with or without a semi-automatic rifle. We have seen bombs, knifes, and pistols contribute to mass murder.

      [read less]

      Its quite clear that the second amendment was put in place to keep the threat of tyranny away. We can see this if we look at documents like The Fedral…

      [read more]
      0
    • Evan from Wisconsin

      Disagree. First, our country was founded on the principle of freedom to have and carry guns. Our first battle with the British was fought to perceive this right. When the British marched towards Lexington and Concord to seize a store of guns and supplies there, all the patriots came together and prepared to fight the British. This right was so important to them that they were willing to risk even their lives for this right. Several even dying.

      As someone else also mentioned, the phrase about the militia, which isn’t even an independent statement, does not restrict the phrase that follows, but is instead one of the many reasons for the amendment.

      Though our Founding Fathers did not have semi-automatic guns, neither did any military. In fact, through our early history, the people have always had military quality guns.

      [read less]

      Disagree. First, our country was founded on the principle of freedom to have and carry guns. Our first battle with the British was fought to perceiv…

      [read more]
      0
    • Olivia from North Carolina

      Elijah, read my response to Donald. Part of it covers my rebuttal to your proposition. Feel free to respond; I love these discussions. Debating and sharing opinions and prospective, especially a diverse range of them, are just what this country needs. Reading these helps me understand the different viewpoints, and as future President of the United States, I really appreciate this discussion and feedback.

      [read less]

      Elijah, read my response to Donald. Part of it covers my rebuttal to your proposition. Feel free to respond; I love these discussions. Debating and sh…

      [read more]
      0
    • Olivia from North Carolina

      Donald, you are right that the people are the militia. However, back then, EVERYONE was the militia. The one military they had as colonies was controlled and sided with Great Britain. The colonists didn’t have an organized militia like that, especially since they had very little funding to begin with. Now we have a huge, organized militia that is one of the most powerful on this Earth. The militia still has guns like the Amendment says, but those of us not enrolled in the military are no longer the militia. We have no right or place to just run out and start battles because we aren’t the militia. We have a militia people can join to have that right. That is an open option and opportunity every able-bodied person can take, so limiting it to the military would not be denying everyone guns. It would actually give incentive to gun lovers to help defend our country because they would get to use guns there. But in early American history, guns were not a right to the public. In fact, that was how it was interpreted until the 1900s. The Black Panthers were the first ones to successfully propose that individuals had the rights to guns because they got in trouble for following cops around with their guns. Then other people realized that if the government will try to stop the Black Panthers from having guns, it may be them next, so everyone jumped on board to support that interpretation. It is a fairly modern thing. For centuries regular citizens were not given a right to guns, nor did they see that they had the right to them. They just had them and went along with their own business. Also, what makes you split up the Amendment like that? There is no proof that those are different clauses. In fact, the different segments separated by commas are not complete sentences or thoughts, and therefore they could not have their own meaning because they are grammatically incorrect on their own. They are not separate clauses. Some different Amendments have them in run on sentences, but each are their own individual and complete grammatical thought, proving they each are complete and have their own purpose. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is not a complete sentence. It doesn’t mean anything because it is not ended. Anything can be added to the end and completely alter the meaning. What our Founding Fathers chose to end it with is, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even though the last part may make sense on its own, separating the two makes the whole Amendment make no sense. If they just wanted people to have guns, why wouldn’t they say, “It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms to defend themselves and their States?”

      Also, guns are not a natural right. Guns aren’t natural. We haven’t had guns since the dawn of time either. The first recorded firearm was in 1364, and the earliest form of humans began in Africa 315,000 years ago. If you are religious and believe that they were here since Earth was formed, which I 100% respect, then humans were alive 4.54 billion years ago. Guns were never, in either case, a “natural” right that we’ve had since “the dawn of time.” Also, you are judging a large and peaceful movement for the few aggressive ones who are loud and destructive enough to get more attention. Most of us are not like that. Not only that, but liberals would NEVER be advocating for men to be the biggest and strongest thing with all the authority. We believe women and men are equal, and suggesting that we think men should be telling all of us what to do truly offends me. None of us have EVER said that men have control over everything, but many conservatives (not all, but many who also support guns) support the man being the “lead of the household.” We would never say that. In fact, we said the opposite, and the opposite of dominating and authoritarian is equal and free. That is what we promote, but allowing violent people to have guns to threaten others and the government isn’t free, it’s torture. It’s fear and paranoia, and I don’t want American citizens living in a world where they have to wonder, “Am I next?”

      [read less]

      Donald, you are right that the people are the militia. However, back then, EVERYONE was the militia. The one military they had as colonies was control…

      [read more]
      0
    • Olivia from North Carolina

      Victoria, that’s not what Amendment Nine says. It’s saying that the Amendments in place cannot be used to take away other rights, meaning they can’t take away rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. Also, even if it did mean what you think it does, no where in the Constitution does it say “average people can own as many fire arms as they want.” It is one sentence and one phrase: the militia is necessary, and we cannot deny them guns. Britain denied their militia guns, and they didn’t want that to happen again. Hamilton even proposed at the Constitutional Convention his own form of government that would have given free ammunition to our enemies. They wanted war to be a fair game unlike Britain did for them. Also, the increase in taxes you are talking about also has to do with advancement in technology and changes in lifestyle. We also are not worried about taxes like they were in the 1700s-1800s. We are also getting benefits and better lifestyles because of those taxes, whereas Britain was taking advantage of the colonies to solve its own war debts. The colonies got nothing for those taxes, not even representation in Congress. We got all of that because they knew it was unfair for that to be denied. You are also using now to fight an argument for back then, which makes no sense. Everything is different now, and they wouldn’t have known back then that America would end up having higher taxes. And most of the Constitution was written based on the issues they saw with Great Britain because they did not want to repeat that. The Articles were the extreme over-correction, and the Constitution just gave the federal government the power to actually do something. I also don’t understand how that Hamiltonn quote is supporting your argument. Hamilton was saying that the Bill of Rights was pointless to begin with because no one in the Constitution gave Congress or any other branch the power to deny those rights, especially since it says that all powers not listed go to the states. Speaking of the States, the federal government isn’t the only one restricting semi-automatic weapons. Seven U.S. States have bans on assault weapons, so it isn’t even purely up to the federal government now. States are choosing to ban them too, so it doesn’t matter if the federal government does it or not. Also, the question doesn’t say that the federal government has to do it. It just asks if semi-automatic rifles should be banned. Due to full incorporation, State laws have to follow the U.S. Constitution just as much as the federal government does. If it was breaking our Second Amendment right to ban these weapons, then why have so many states already gotten away with it? California banned 50 brands of rifles, pistols, and shotguns in 1989, and it banned magazines that were classified as large capacity. They’ve added more restrictions since then because of the children being shot to death in their own schools. They cared about those children enough to do that. They were followed by Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. Even local governments in D.C., Illinois, Indiana, and Massachusetts have added more restrictions on guns. The only time we would be denying you guns and breaking the Second Amendment is if we banned ALL guns. You still can have guns with these restrictions, but we want to try to save thousands of people from dying as well. No one is denying you guns, we are denying weapons of destruction and murder. There’s a difference.

      [read less]

      Victoria, that’s not what Amendment Nine says. It’s saying that the Amendments in place cannot be used to take away other rights, meaning they can’t t…

      [read more]
      0
    • Isaac from New York

      Taking away guns is not the answer, just look at Baltimore and Chicago two cities that have the most gun control laws in the country; not only do they have the strictest gun laws but also the highest murder rates in the country. Compared to Texas which has the fewest gun laws and the lowest murder rates in the country. Its not a gun problem its a people problem, better yet a moral problem.

      [read less]

      Taking away guns is not the answer, just look at Baltimore and Chicago two cities that have the most gun control laws in the country; not only do they…

      [read more]
      0
    • Takoda from Virginia

      Olivia, thank you for your support of my argument. I enjoyed reading both your argument and rebuttal to Payton. I believe that your argument is well thought out and logical, but I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

      As you said the 2nd Amendment stated in full is, “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.”

      This amendment guarantees two rights; the right to keep “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” and the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” I believe that the militia aspect of this amendment is fulfilled by the National Guard because a true militia would not be practical in today’s modern setting. Why the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is because it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The specific phrase “the right of the people” is used multiple times throughout the constitution to refer to U. S. citizens (not military or law enforcement), thus securing the right to “keep and bear Arms” for individual citizens.

      I look forward to your response!

      -Takoda

      [read less]

      Olivia, thank you for your support of my argument. I enjoyed reading both your argument and rebuttal to Payton. I believe that your argument is well t…

      [read more]
      0
    • Olivia from North Carolina

      Thank you for your response Peyton, but I respectfully diagree. You say my argument is flawed, though you give no evidence to support your believed reasons for the Second Amendment. You simply stated your own present-day opinion, while I used history and logic to prove my argument by understanding the thought process . Also, why in the world would a government supply citizens with firearms so that any angry citizen can attack government officials based on dramaticized media and speculation? If that was the purpose of the Second Amendment, the federal government would have immediately been attacked after the Constitution was ratified and they began taxing citizens. They saw that as overpowering because of what King George III did with taxes. No one was happy about it. You are also implying that the purpose of guns is to allow citizens to hurt one another in support of their own opinion. We aren’t holding guns to the head of our government to make them do what they want, so guns are not at all keeping them “in check,” especially since the federal military has far more weaponry than nonmilitary US citizens. Simply owning a gun would do absolutely nothing to control the government because any physical threat to the health and safety of important government officials would result in the angry citizen being killed, not the other way around. So if I may, your fundamental premise is flawed.

      To continue, my source for that information was the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Here is their officially released PDF document discussing firearms and violence statistics: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/6.Firearms.pdf

      And you claim that semi-automatic RIFLES are low percentage, but you completely left out hand guns, which are much more likely to be taken for shootings because they can be discretely carried while rifles cannot. Big shootings were only carried out with them because of intense planning, knowledge of the area, and distance given for them to carry such a dangerous weapon. These rifles are used in mass shootings neevertheleses, so allowing people to buy large amounts of these guns is threatening the safety of Americans. Shooters are not always predictable, as shown in the Las Vegas Massacre. Semi-automatic handguns also account for many cases of gun violence. If nearly ALL weapons are semi-automatic as you said yourself, then there is no way that semi-automatic weapons are not responsible for many killings. Granted this question is specifically saying rifles, semi-automatic weapons in all forms are incredibly dangerous and being legislatively debated. They are also in large numbers as you said, and rifles are nevertheless a part of that group of violent weaponry.

      I understand your argument about how difficult it will be to take away guns and to stop the black market. It will be incredibly difficult, but we can’t let that stop us from at least trying to save the lives of many Americans who will become victims of gun violence. Just because something is difficult does not mean we do nothing at all. That excuse is simply allowing more guns to filter onto the streets and into the hands of distressed citizens. Also, the black market gets many guns not from gun stores, but from the homes of law-abiding citizens who carelessly leave their large amount of guns out or in poorly constructed safes and security systems. Even large safes can be broken into by members of intelligent organized crime. I understand that it will be difficult to take away semi-automatic guns, but it is better to try than allowing people to die just because you don’t feel like doing something difficult. The Revolution was difficult. The Civil War was difficult. The World Wars were difficult, yet America still gave resources and lives to save millions. It is in the best interest of our country to fight the current Civil War we are fighting: the war on gun violence, and you can’t fight fire with fire.

      [read less]

      Thank you for your response Peyton, but I respectfully diagree. You say my argument is flawed, though you give no evidence to support your believed re…

      [read more]
      0
    • Victoria from New York

      Even IF your personal interpretation of the Second Amendment were true, I ask you to look at Amendment Nine of the Bill of Rights. It states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” So clearly, our right to own firearms for personal use IS protected. History repeats itself; we have just as much right and necessity to protect ourselves from our government now as our ancestors did then. The founding fathers weren’t stupid; they knew there would be advances in firearm technology. Their protection did not say “the right to own and bear the designs of firearms available today.” No–the protections extend to all firearms. They understood that protection of the people meant protection of the state; thus self-defense is a very important part of our right to own and bear firearms. As to your comment about taxation, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not an over-correction of Britain’s errors. In fact, our own government taxes us to a much larger extent today (even accounting for inflation) than Britain under King George did to the colonists. While the militia was perhaps the most important reason behind the Second Amendment, it was not the only one. When the Bill of Rights was first proposed Alexander Hamilton asked, “Why say the government shall not do what the Constitution gives it no power to do?” Clearly, the Constitution was written to be taken literally. Nowhere in the Constitution is the power given to the government to regulate what tools the average citizen may or may not have. By Amendment Nine, that decision is clearly left to the citizen. People have every right to own a gun for personal use, and the government has no right to attempt to change this. This country was founded to allow, in the words of Jefferson, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I defend and exercise all three with a firearm. Finally, your statistics on violence are too narrow. Look at total murders, regardless of the implement, and you will find that the U.K. has a big problem. Then do some research and find out how many times in America a firearm has saved a life.

      [read less]

      Even IF your personal interpretation of the Second Amendment were true, I ask you to look at Amendment Nine of the Bill of Rights. It states, “The en…

      [read more]
      0
    • Donald from Arizona

      The thing people forget when they claim the right to keep and bear arms only applies to a ‘well-regulated militia is that we, the people, are the militia. In addition, both the founding fathers in their own writings, and language professors in university have declared the preamble clause referring to the ‘well-regulated militia’ is stated as a reason, but in no way does the right to keep and bear arms depend upon the first clause. We have the right to keep and bear arms regardless of our participation in a militia, and we have had the right since the dawn of time: It is a ‘natural’ right, and therefore ‘inalienable.’ If the 2nd Amendment were abolished, we would still have the right to keep and bear arms, for the right goes all the way back to the dawn of the human race. Additionally, those who advocate abolishing the right to keep and bear arms are not advocating a peaceful society without confliction; rather, they are advocating a society in which the biggest, strongest men were always ‘right’ and no one else had anything to say about it. As the Colt Repeating Arms company advertised in the last 1800’s, “God made Man. Sam Colt made Man EQUAL.” (I would add (and woman) into that statement, for women have more need of being armed than anyone else..

      [read less]

      The thing people forget when they claim the right to keep and bear arms only applies to a ‘well-regulated militia is that we, the people, are the mili…

      [read more]
      0
    • Elijah from Wisconsin

      The 2nd Amendment was just one out of many amendments to ensure a limited government. There are two things the 2nd Amendment does. First, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. The second is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. James Madison wanted to give more power to the state militias as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. The second was the citizen’s right to bear arms. Banning semi-automatic rifles would result in only the criminals and the Government having weapons. The Constitution is a system of checks and balances, that is why it makes sense to let the citizens be armed. You stated, “They state that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, so they allow the citizens to bear arms.” As I mentioned before, these two parts of the 2nd Amendment are separate. The state militias are separate from arming the citizens. Banning guns like UK did would not work. Banning all guns would just increase the black market, stop law-biding citizens from defending themselves, and lead to dangerous tyranny.

      [read less]

      The 2nd Amendment was just one out of many amendments to ensure a limited government. There are two things the 2nd Amendment does. First, “A well reg…

      [read more]
      0
    • Payton from Wisconsin

      The basis for your argument is that the second amendment was made was to defend the state because the fedral government could not organize a military. This fundamental premise is flawed. The basis for gun rights is to keep our government in check. Gun rights are to resist government tyranny. Governments have turned tyrannical and dictatorships have formed becuase the general populace was not armed.
      On your statistic about gun violence in the US and the UK, I would love to see a source so that I could look at it as well. Alongside that, semi-automatic rifles count for a very low percentage of the gun violence in the US.
      A gun ban would not work in the US, it would not “save” anyone as your essay says it would. Nealy all weapons are semi-automatic, and to try to take or buy back 300 million guns, and then keep guns from the black market is completely asinine. We can barely keep people from coming over the border, let alone guns. Trying to take guns from the populace would not go down smoothly. Giving the benefit of the doubt, if they somehow managed to take away 300 million guns, it would be extremely hard to keep a black market from forming.

      [read less]

      The basis for your argument is that the second amendment was made was to defend the state because the fedral government could not organize a military….

      [read more]
      0
  • Rachael from Ohio

    It is not safe for the public to have access to military type weapons, including assault rifles. In a discussion about the Cicilline bill, Representative Cicilline put it best when they said, “Assault weapons were made for one purpose, they are designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. They do not belong in our communities.” While some guns are used for hunting, assault weapons are often unsuitable for hunting as they are too aggressive and will ruin the animal’s hide and leave big wounds. There is no reason to have an assault weapon in the home of American citizens and they believe so too. According to the Washington Post article, “A Quinnipiac poll found that 67 percent of Americans, including 43 percent of Republicans, favored an assault weapons ban,” and, “A CNN poll found that 57 percent of Americans favored ‘a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of rifles capable of semiautomatic fire, such as the AR-15,’ including 34 percent of Republicans.” They are not safe to keep in our communities, and when they were banned from 1994-2004 there was a decrease in gun massacres with six or more victims. It is time to permanently ban assault rifles in American communities.

    [read less]

    It is not safe for the public to have access to military type weapons, including assault rifles. In a discussion about the Cicilline bill, Representat…

    [read more]
    0
    • James from Colorado

      While Cicilline was correct in his premise about “Assault” rifles. there is a huge difference between w2hat the public can buy as opposed to a true Assault Rifle. The big difference is the rate of fire that a true Assault Rifle has is this –

      M4 Carbine – 5.56 mm

      Muzzle Velocity 2970 feet per second
      Rate of Fire (Cyclic) 700-970 rounds per minute

      The AR -15 (AR standing for Armalite who is the manufacturer) which is also a 5.56mm has this big difference –

      “At about 600 rounds per minute, the gas tube on an AR-15, which enables it to fire as a semi-automatic, will melt — that could explain why Paddock used multiple guns. Since an automatic weapon like the AR-15 can fire 400 rounds per minute, this happens pretty quickly” – CBS news.

      Lastly I give you this voice from history – “The Nazis had in their possession a national registry of gun-owners. When they came to power in 1933, they knew exactly who had what kind of gun and how many. And they didn’t even have to compile the registry themselves. A few years earlier, the Interior Minister of the German Weimar government had started the gun ownership registry as a way of keeping tabs on extremist groups in Germany, such as the communists…and the Nazis. The national registry was thorough, precise, and extensive. But not public. The Weimar interior minister was wary of it falling into the wrong hands, like those of the Nazi extremists he warned of.

      Shortly afterward, with the Nazis finally coming to power, he and his staff either neglected to destroy the list or ran out of time. So in one of their first acts after Hitler was elected to govern Germany – yes, he really was elected by the German people – the Nazis quickly went about confiscating the guns through the German gun-owner registry. —
      The Nazis were nervous about any of their real or imagined domestic enemies shooting back at them. They were especially nervous about the Jews, paranoid to the point where even after they confiscated the guns of all the registered Jewish gun-owners, they still went after the Jewish war veterans. This is why they ended up at Helga’s home in Wesel in 1937.

      Thus, when the Kristallnacht rampage happened a year later, the Jews didn’t shoot a single bullet in self-defense because they didn’t have any guns to shoot with. The Nazis had made sure of it.

      Of the 30,000 defenseless Jewish men rounded up that night, only a few survived to the end of the war. How many would have lived had they been armed when the Nazis came for them? We can never know. Yet we can a least surmise that it would have been more than a few, probably many more. —
      Luck was how Jews survived the Holocaust – missing the last transport to Treblinka; jumping in another line after selection; or, in the case of Helga, miraculously securing a visa to America three months before the Nazis invaded Holland and murdered every Jewish girl at her boarding school. The tragic historical reality is that the overwhelming majority of Europe’s Jews perished in the Nazi genocide. Without any means of fighting back, they were utterly defenseless when the Nazis came for them, and went to the gas chambers like sheep to the slaughter.” Excerpted from the article Titled When the Nazis came for the guns” by Tom Mountain on American Thinker Which Can be found here – https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/when_the_nazis_came_for_the_guns.html

      [read less]

      While Cicilline was correct in his premise about “Assault” rifles. there is a huge difference between w2hat the public can buy as opposed to a true As…

      [read more]
      0
    • Sam from Maryland

      Your proposal here is to take “assault rifles” out of the hands of the people. The only problem is there is no real definition of an “assault rifle”. Many people take it for being all fully automatic firearms. When talking about gun control it is very important to know what you are talking about. This whole forum is about the ban of semi-automatic weapons, not full-automatic weapons or “assault rifles”. Semi-auto means for every pull of the trigger, one cartridge is fired. Full-auto means rounds will continue to be fired while the trigger is held down.

      Statistically, full-automatic weapons, or “assault rifles”, make up 5/100 of a percent of all guns in America. They are highly regulated and taxed, and are bought and sold legally. None of the recent mass shooting were committed with a full-auto firearm.

      Semi-automatic firearms as a whole make up roughly half of all private firearms. Semi-auto rifles makes up about 25% of all firearms. To ban all semi-automatic weapons, or even just semi-auto rifles, would not only violate our personal liberties to defend ourselves and violate our specific constitution liberty “to keep and bear arms”, it would also mean you have a quarter of all guns (8 million and 125 thousand) rifles that you have to forcibly take away from the people which would just end in more violence.

      Before I end, I want to politely correct you on your terms. “Assault rifles” are not semi-automatic firearms as stated above. They are full-autos which are already on a manufacture ban. There are only 187000 full-automatic firearms in the U.S. and they are mostly owned by collectors. Second, you use the term “assault weapon”. There is no such thing. It is a term invented by a California news station to get people to feel scared by simple rifles. You specifically mention the AR-15 in your comment. This is neither an assault rifle or assault weapon or full-automatic or military weapons. They are purely manufactured for civilians. The AR-15, FN Scar, M16, or AK-47s are all scary looking weapons, but they are all semi-automatic in the U.S. The AR just gets so much heat because it is the most popular. I encourage you to look up two pictures on Google. Look up a picture of an AR-15 and another of a Mini 14. The Mini 14 looks much less scary; like a hunting rifle. In fact, the AR-15 and the Mini 14 are both semi-automatic, fire the same round, are both used and are great for hunting, have readily available 30 round plus magazines, and have a plethora of accessories. This renders your argument about hunting and killing completely irrelevant.

      I hope this taught you something about terminology or changed your mind on this issue. Remember, it is very important to read up on terminology and know what you are talking about. Just like there is no spoon, there is no “assault weapons”.

      Thanks for quoting your sources as well, however biased they may be.

      [read less]

      Your proposal here is to take “assault rifles” out of the hands of the people. The only problem is there is no real definition of an “assault rifle”. …

      [read more]
      0
    • Donald from Arizona

      Well, first, Rachael, here is a newsflash: Freedom isn’t safe. If you want “safe,” go find a police state somewhere to live where you have no free choice to do anything without government permission. Unlike every other nation in the world, the founding fathers of our government recognized the right to the people to alter and abolish their government if it became a tyranny. To do that you need military-grade weapons. Secondly, they are used quite often for hunting, and guess what? The AR-15 in .223 Remington is a pretty light round compared to typical hunting rounds like the .30-’06 or .308WIN. Barely suitable for deer, not suitable at all for Elk.
      Both the polls you list are conducted by far-left organizations whose political philosophies include communism and fascism, and people of their philosophy have been trying to destroy our nation of liberty since COMINTERN in 1925. That’s why a lot of Americans, especially those who live in large cities run by incompetent Democrats, think they have no use for a military-grade weapon: They expect everyone else to bail them out if they get in trouble instead of being responsible for their own safety. Lastly, when they were banned from 1994-2004, there was a decrease in the number of massacres with six or more victims, but that decrease was consistent with the decrease that had already been occurring prior to the ban. In fact, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 had absolutely zero effect on the overall crime rate, and that is why it was allowed to sunset. So, Rachael, this is a case of ‘been there, done that — no need to do it again. Besides, are you aware that between 300,000 and 2.5 million times a year, law-abiding citizens stop crimes in progress with firearms of one kind or another, including what you erroneously call “assault rifles,” and 99% of the time they never have to fire the weapon?

      [read less]

      Well, first, Rachael, here is a newsflash: Freedom isn’t safe. If you want “safe,” go find a police state somewhere to live where you have no free c…

      [read more]
      0
  • Mantek from Pennsylvania

    The semi-automatic weapons should be banned because my main point is that they are a weapon of war. When I think of weapons of self-defense, I think of a simple pistol/handgun or at most a rifle. But having a rifle, that is simply outrageous to think that you need a weapon that fires a 100 shots per minute to defend yourself. Although I agree that the second amendment would be violated, something that is the first thing in the constitution is the preamble in the United States and one line that really highlights the priority of this debate is, “promote the general Welfare.” This clearly states that the government should keep its citizens safe. How can we promote general Welfare when we have weapons of war. Also, an example of people that defend themselves, but don’t carry outrageous weapons(semi-automatics) are Sikhs. In this religion, there are the five k’s, and one of them is the kirpan. It says in their holy book(Shri Guru Granth Sahid Ji), that if all ends fail, they use the weapon to defend themselves. The weapon is not some big sword, it is a small dagger. This is common sense. Also on the basis of the second amendment states that we shall have a “well-regulated militia.” We need to understand that this context was used back in Washington’s time period in where people were essentially not many people were ready for the army. So they essentially needed anyone to pick up arms and defend themselves, or they would be overrun by the British. Now since we have a military and a police force, we don’t have to have semi-automatics in the hands of average people, we should have handguns and at most a rifle. Also, we can always amend laws, we have done that throughout the years, but we can not bring back a person’s life. I just want to leave you with one question, Should we really put the constitution over our citizen’s lives?

    [read less]

    The semi-automatic weapons should be banned because my main point is that they are a weapon of war. When I think of weapons of self-defense, I think o…

    [read more]
    0
    • Donald from Arizona

      Oh, Mantek. The fact that what you erroneously call an “assault rifle” is a military-grade weapon is precisely why we have the right to keep and bear them. Unlike the nations of the rest of the world, who are terrified of their subjects (note that word!) being armed, the founding fathers of our nation believed a properly-run government that existed to protect the rights of the citizens would not be fearful of its citizens (note THAT word!) being armed for the purpose of keeping government in check. You cannot keep government in check with a slingshot, Mantek. And American citizens are not ‘subjects;” we are sovereign citizens — sovereign over our persons, papers, property, and rights under the rule of law. So long as we harm no one (absent self-defense), our government is required to leave us alone. Our government has become ‘way too much like those foreign nations, but we finally have a president who is trying to put a stop to that. If you believe in the liberty under the rule of law our nation was founded to preserve and protect, Mantek, you have an obligation to do whatever is necessary to protect the liberties of others under the rule of law. Under our system (which our federal government routinely violates), if the power is not delegated to the federal government to enforce a given law, that law is null and void from the moment of its inception. We have the right to keep and bear arms — including the arms of the typically well-equipped infantryman — to keep it that way.

      [read less]

      Oh, Mantek. The fact that what you erroneously call an “assault rifle” is a military-grade weapon is precisely why we have the right to keep and bear…

      [read more]
      0
  • Sarah from Ohio

    Semi-automatic rifles should be banned due to the amount of chaos and destruction they cause in the wake of their use. For example, the gun used in the Stoneman Douglas High School school shooting was an AR-15, which is an automatic weapon that doesn’t belong in civilians hands.

    [read less]

    Semi-automatic rifles should be banned due to the amount of chaos and destruction they cause in the wake of their use. For example, the gun used in th…

    [read more]
    0
    • James from Colorado

      Once more the ignorance of youth is showing through your specious argument. First off a semi auto still requires a trigger pull for each round fired, a ten round clip requires that the trigger is pulled ten times. Just as someone saying that an AR – 15 is an assault rifle knows nothing of what they are saying. The “AR” in AR -15 stands for Armalite -the corporation that manufactures them. The “assault rifle” or M-4 is a fully automatic rifle – meaning one pull of the trigger and you can empty the clip. These are ILLEGAL for civilians to own unless they possess a Class 3 License which requires a thorough background check by the FBI, and a hefty fee. Now you also state that “because of the amount of carnage they cause” however I would disagree because it is not the gun that causes the carnage – it is the person wielding it. The gun is a mere tool, your hoplophobia is showing because you are almost giving life to an inanimate object. The gun didn’t whisper evil thoughts into the perpetrators heads, that evil came from their hearts. The gun had nothing to do with it. Ergo I would submit that your argument against anyone owning an AR-15 or any other semi – automatic rifle is without standing.

      Once more … the 2nd Amendment is about the God given right of Self defense and neither you nor the Government is high enough on the food chain to take that right from We the People. Go to the JFPO website and look up the table of Genocide – there you will see what the effects of government instituted gun control are.
      But I will give you a glimpse of what carnage is – in 1917 the Bolsheviks took over Russia, in order to establish their government, they instituted gun control. During their first 3 years of change, they killed over a million people using guns. Some places they killed up to 10,000 people a day on orders from their Secret Police or Josef Dzerzhinsky who was its head. They killed so much that they were running short of ammunition. So what they did was to line people up so that they were very close together and then fire a shot at the first body, they found out that they could kill 5 people in this fashion and so save on ammunition expenditure. These acts were done with single rounds from Bolt action rifles. Read “The Black Book of Communism , Terror Crimes and Repression”. It is because of governments getting full control by disarming the people that tyrannical governance flourishes. The Founders knew this, and the 2nd Amendment was recognized by the Bill of Rights and codified as a RIGHT of freedom and self defense that is ours at birth.
      As John Adams said “The right of self defense is a primal law of nature which I have not surrendered by caveat, nor would I if I could.”

      [read less]

      Once more the ignorance of youth is showing through your specious argument. First off a semi auto still requires a trigger pull for each round fired,…

      [read more]
      0
    • Donald from Arizona

      The AR-15 is not an automatic weapon, Sarah. An automatic weapon continues firing as long as you hold the trigger back, until it runs out of ammunition. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon (also called an ‘autoloader’) that fires once every time you pull the trigger.

      It doesn’t belong in civilian hands? Would you prefer that the guy who comes in and shoots up your school is a government jack-booted thug? (I assume you will say ‘Of course not.’) Yet that is what you are asking for. Maybe the jackbooted thug won’t come in and shoot the place up, but you have no defense if he does. You have no defense if he doesn’t shoot the place up, but simply inducts a certain number of you into a work crew to go break rocks, or farm land, or whatever other slave labor may be required by the local Kommissar. Do you know there has been nine major genocides in the world in the last 100+ years in which somewhere between 74 and 90 million people have been murdered by their own governments? I don’t suppose you know that in every one of those genocides, the government first registered all weapons, then licensed gun owners, then banned military-grade rifles, then confiscated those rifles from private hands, and only then murdered their own citizens? I think what you are asking for comes under the heading of ‘Be careful what you wish for,’ don’t you think? American citizens will not give up our right to keep and bear military-grade rifles, Sarah, and genocide will not happen here. OTOH, unarmed citizens have nothing to say about what happens to them, do they?

      [read less]

      The AR-15 is not an automatic weapon, Sarah. An automatic weapon continues firing as long as you hold the trigger back, until it runs out of ammuniti…

      [read more]
      0
  • Alana from Maryland

    Citizens of the United States should not be allowed to own these military grade weapons as it ultimately causes more harm than good. While hunters or those who own one for self defense might argue against banning semi-automatic rifles, there is just simply no need for these weapons. Hunters can use other weapons of their choosing, but using an automatic rifle is too extreme for a hobby or lifestyle. Those who want this weapon for defense should be allowed to own a gun, but a situation that does occur regarding protecting oneself is most likely not dire enough where semi-automatic weapons will be needed. Tragedies such as the Las Vegas massacre and the Texas church shooting could have been avoided if semi-automatic rifles were banned, and only prove that there is no substantial reason to allow citizens to purchase these guns. There is no need for these weapons of mass destruction, period.

    [read less]

    Citizens of the United States should not be allowed to own these military grade weapons as it ultimately causes more harm than good. While hunters or …

    [read more]
    0
    • Donald from Arizona

      Tell me, Alana: If someone like Steve Paddock, who attacked the Law Vegas concert, or Devin Kelley, who conducted the church shooting in Texas (AND WAS STOPPED BY AN NRA INSTRUCTOR WITH AN AR-15, by the way, in case you didn’t know that) — if violent maniacs like these two are going to commit multiple murders at one go, do you really think they will care much about whether the law bans the rifles or not? There are millions of these rifles in private hands; it is not physically possible for any government ban on these weapons to have the slightest effect. Not to mention the fact that law-abiding citizens who own these weapons are not going to obey a law banning them because under our Constitution, such a law is null and void from the moment of its inception. We HAVE THE RIGHT to keep and bear military-grade rifles, Alana, to keep our government in check. Our nation is unique in the world for our liberty under the rule of law in which government is prohibited from interfering with our rights. A lot of very powerful people would like to see our nation brought under their dictatorship control, and those people are playing young people like yourself like a cheap violin. We have 240+ years of liberty in this country (mostly diminishing liberty because of those powerful people suckering the ignorant) and those of us who keep, maintain, and bear arms such as the AR-15 and similar-platform rifles, do not intend to allow them to win. I hope you and your friends won’t either.

      [read less]

      Tell me, Alana: If someone like Steve Paddock, who attacked the Law Vegas concert, or Devin Kelley, who conducted the church shooting in Texas (AND W…

      [read more]
      0
  • Arness from Mississippi

    There is no practical day to day use of an assault rifle in the hands of everyday citizens. This has caused more harm than good. The argument that this is unconstitutional is invalid because any amendment we make would be “unconstitutional” because we are amending the constitution. These types of guns can’t even be used for hunting, so the question still remains…What is the use of them? The answer has been weapons of mass destruction time and time again.

    [read less]

    There is no practical day to day use of an assault rifle in the hands of everyday citizens. This has caused more harm than good. The argument that thi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gabriela from Massachusetts

    What does America care more about: easily accessible guns, or the safety of its citizens? That is what the debate truly comes down to. In Broward County, Florida, where the Parkland shooting occurred, the shooter was able to get an AR-15 at an earlier age than he would have been able to purchase a handgun. While banning semi-automatic weapons would certainly be beneficial, which can be proven with statistics from countries that have banned guns such as Australia and England, mental health issues also need to be taken more seriously. In order to stop mass shootings, there needs to be stricter penalties for people illegally selling or distributing firearms, semi-automatic rifles must be banned, and mental health needs to be addressed in schools and communities. Some argue that guns are used for self defense, yet about 18,000 people have died over fifteen years in America from gun suicides, while there have been only about 300 home invasion homicides. Also, the banishment of semi-automatic does not infringe the second amendment, which needs to be adjusted to this time period accordingly. In my opinion and in the opinion of many foreigners, Americans have an obsession with guns. And that obsession has proven to be extremely fatal.

    [read less]

    What does America care more about: easily accessible guns, or the safety of its citizens? That is what the debate truly comes down to. In Broward Coun…

    [read more]
    0
    • James from Colorado

      I got two quotes for you! Both by historical figures.
      The first one is ” A sword is a tool in the killer’s hand.” – Seneca ( Ancient Roman Statesman)

      The second is “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Cesare Beccaria, Famous 16th Century Milanese Jurist

      This country has more gun laws on the books than any other country, yet the school shootings continue. If you want to find out about the good that guns can do, read about the University of Texas shooting of Aug. 1st, 1966.
      Here is the link to a story on it. https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/96-minutes And remember while you’re at it that Charles Whitman was trained as a sniper. However once he started becoming a target, his rate of fire slowed considerably.

      [read less]

      I got two quotes for you! Both by historical figures.
      The first one is ” A sword is a tool in the killer’s hand.” – Seneca ( Ancient Roman Statesm…

      [read more]
      0
  • Grant from North Carolina

    Assault rifles in their creation were designed to be the most efficient weapons for ending human life. Not for recreation, hunting, or protection: their purpose in the world is to provide a quick and easy method to end the existence of as many people as possible by a single person. This devestating fact has been proven several times: The most devestating mass shootings in our history have been done using assault rifles. Beyond the havoc they can wreak upon human life, even hunters call them unsporting, and they’re inefficient at protecting a home. These weapons of war should not, and cannot, be in the hands of the public. While the Second Amendment says that everyone has the right to bear arms, it meant in protection for one’s civil liberties and freedoms. Not so that the mentally ill and violent can steal the right to life from others. And while it is, according to the NRA, a right to possess the means to do this under the laws of our Constitution, the Constition is far from a perfect document, and must be interpreted and changed to fit the time. At the original penning of the constitution, our founding fathers decided that people with certain skin tones could be considered 3/5 of a person, which shows how flawed the document can be, and why some parts need to change. Never in our history has this much destructive capability been able to be controlled by any single civilian, and we have to adapt out laws and thinking about weapons to match it.

    [read less]

    Assault rifles in their creation were designed to be the most efficient weapons for ending human life. Not for recreation, hunting, or protection: the…

    [read more]
    0
    • Victoria from New York

      Grant, many, many hunters, including myself, actually prefer the semi-automatic for target shooting and hunting. They are extremely popular among hunters–some of my best memories include responsible use of a semi-automatic.

      What is an assault rifle? It is a political term. Semi-automatics are not produced for killing people. They are made for legal civilian reasons. And honestly, I can think of much easier ways to kill people than with a semi-automatic rifle. But a semi-automatic rifle is the best thing I can think of for a good guy to show up and use to save lives.

      I don’t know why you think they are inefficient to protect a home. They are one of the best options available.

      Perhaps you will admit the problem is actually those mentally ill and violent people you mentioned? And further, will you admit that it is they who need to be regulated, not firearms? Under Washington D.C.’s laws for young offenders, many criminals have been released on parole for a firearms infraction multiple times, convicted then eventually let out onto the streets. Perhaps reforming this faulty legislation would be a good place to start for actual change. Punish criminals, not legal gun owners.

      Lastly, our Constitution and Bill of Rights are different. The Constitution can be amended–we are given instructions for how to do so–but the Bill of Rights is set in stone. It will stand until this government topples, and we conservative, responsible firearms owners will always defend it.

      [read less]

      Grant, many, many hunters, including myself, actually prefer the semi-automatic for target shooting and hunting. They are extremely popular among hun…

      [read more]
      0
  • Abhiraman from Maryland

    The need for gun laws is evident in society today. When the founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the America they lived in was very different. They had to worry about the wilderness, attacks from Native Americans, and the threat of being invaded in retaliation. On top of that, there was no real enlisted army, it was more ragtag. For that reason, guns made sense. There were no semiautomatic rifles, capable of mowing down crowds. The idea of a shooting hadn’t even appeared yet. However, today, we live in utmost comfort, without having to worry about a bear attacking us, or needing to defend our homeland. Semi-automatic rifles are not needed. Leave the fighting to the army, leave the policing to the police and stop the production of these guns.

    [read less]

    The need for gun laws is evident in society today. When the founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the America they lived in was very…

    [read more]
    0
    • James from Colorado

      The 2nd Amendment as with all the other Amendments pertain to “RIGHTS” of We the People. The Founders knew that governments were the foundation of tyranny, and that standing armies could be used as tools of tyranny by government. So they wanted to give WE the People the means to defend ourselves not only from criminals, but from government repression. They went through it with King George and his royal edicts stripping them of every vestige of freedom until they’d had enough. Perhaps you’d rather live in a totalitarian society ( I wouldn’t … I’ve seen them having served for 20 years in the military.) If you do, there is one that is 90 miles south of Florida … feel free to move there. This country is about personal freedom and is a country of laws, the Constitution being the foremost one. My oath of Enlistment stated ” To support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” That oath has never expired though I’ve been retired for 15 years now. I am still bound by it and will still defend it. That includes the 2nd Amendment and your right to speak things that I disagree with.

      [read less]

      The 2nd Amendment as with all the other Amendments pertain to “RIGHTS” of We the People. The Founders knew that governments were the foundation of ty…

      [read more]
      0
  • Andy from California

    I completely support a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, not just rifles. Such a ban is supported by over 67% of the American public. In addition, it has already been successfully implemented in nearly every other major developed country on earth, from Germany to Japan. All of these countries have consistently far less gun violence than in the United States. I should also note that the EU officially bans semi-automatic firearms, and the population of the entire EU is far larger than the entire population of the United States, so the argument that such a policy cannot be implemented in the US is just utterly false. Many stalwart defenders of semi-automatic rifle ownership will point to the 2nd Amendment. They argue that it cannot be infringed upon. Unfortunately, they are completely wrong. The Supreme Court has already ruled over and over again that localities and states have a constitutional right to set their own gun regulations. This is why semi-automatic firearms are already banned in states such as California and New York. Also, if you observe gun violence data, you will find that the top ten states with gun violence also happen to be the top ten states with Republican governors, Republican state legislatures, and the loosest gun laws. The top ten states with the least gun violence, including states like California and New York (despite their large populations), happen to have the most stringent gun laws. This is further evidence that gun control works. Currently, automatic firearms are already banned in America. There aren’t a ton of Republicans arguing for automatics to be legalized again. Hardly anyone, not even the NRA, would argue that banning automatics is a violation on the 2nd Amendment. This is proof enough that gun control is entirely constitutional. However, the best argument in favor of a ban on semi-automatic firearms is the fact that people have a constitutional right to life and liberty, as per the 14th Amendment. By allowing mass ownership of semi-automatic firearms, we are directly depriving them of this right by making their lives less safe and more prone to gun-related deaths. The statistics back this up. We should also heed the words of conservative Republican president Ronald Reagan, who himself stated in 1989 that a ban on AK-47s and AR-15s is totally reasonable, because no sane person would ever use those weapons for home defense or hunting. Even the original leadership of the NRA originally supported strict gun control. The loosening up of gun laws is a relatively modern occurrence that is directly correlated with the desire of NRA executives to continue to profit off of gun sales through mass media scare tactics. My generation has had enough and we will be the change that we want.

    [read less]

    I completely support a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, not just rifles. Such a ban is supported by over 67% of the American public. In addition, i…

    [read more]
    0
    • Olivia from North Carolina

      100% support your argument. I also agree that gun regulations can be pressed by states. If someone wants to interpret the Second Amendment to mean nonmilitary citizens can own guns, it still does not make the ban of semi-automatic weapons unconstitutional. This would mean that Americans have the right to guns, not ALL guns. They are not stopping Americans from having guns, only stopping them from having weapons of mass murder.

      And you are so correct about the EU. Their gun laws are remarkable. They have crime and black markets just like we do, but strict gun laws have made gun violence half of what it is in the US.

      I love your argument about the 14th Amendment, and I believe it is totally valid.

      I, a fellow member of your generation, have also had enough, and I will be, along with the rest of iGen, the change that we want to see in this world.

      [read less]

      100% support your argument. I also agree that gun regulations can be pressed by states. If someone wants to interpret the Second Amendment to mean non…

      [read more]
      0
  • Tori from Texas

    Yes, they should be banned. Let the military have the weapons that are needed and still appropriate, but not citizens at home.

    0
    • Victoria from New York

      Oh, so if someone breaks into your house or attempts to rob your business, you are supposed to meet their demands instead of fighting back?

      0
  • Annabelle from Ohio

    Semi-automatic rifles should be banned. Most hunters dislike their use, they are commonly used in mass shootings, and a ban on semi-automatic rifles does not impede your second amendment rights.
    While there are many hunters who enjoy using their AR-15’s to hunt with, a majority of hunters are opposed to the use of semi-automatic weapons for big game hunting. Many cite the safety concerns related to those who are too preoccupied with spraying bullets as they hunt to pay attention to what lies beyond the deer. Others, including those who are lobbying for the use of these weapons, admit that the gun itself has inherent difficulties. You may be able to follow your prey’s movement after your first shot, however, any bullet holes left behind are too small to create a traceable blood trail.
    Semi-automatic rifles are chosen by many responsible for mass shootings for the same reasons some hunters enjoy their convienience. They are lightweight, customizable, and easy to use. You can track your prey without the trouble of having to reload, and you can spray your bullets with ease. These semi-automatic rifles have been used in severl high profile mass shootings in the past 35 years, including but not limited to Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, and the Parkland tragedies.
    Many gun advocates argue that people only want to ban semi-automatic rifles because they look “scarier” than other semi-automatic weapons. While this may be the case for some, it is important to recall that fear is a large factor of control, especially in hostage situations. While these guns were initially developed for the sporting use of civilians, they quickly evolved to give the United States an advantage against the Axis Powers in World War II and have since been referred to as “weapons of war.”
    Banning semi-automatic weapons does not equate to interfering with one’s second amendment rights. The second amendment states that we, as citizens of the United States of America, have a right to “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.” A ban on semi-automatic rifles is not a ban on all guns, not even all semi-automatic weapons. These weapons are being used by the people, on the people. The United States Constitution is a living document and should be interpreted as such. When this amendment was written, semi-automatic weapons were 100 years in the future and the devistation that can be caused was unthinkable. The idea behind the second amendment is to protect the people from a tyrannical government, so that if the prsident should become like a king, the people could revolt, if they so chose.
    The Bill of Rights also houses another thought; “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Ninth Amendment to our United States Constitution. Therefore, I ask those who vehemently fight any restriction on their semi-automatic rifle: Does your second amendment “right to bear arms” now trump my right to live?

    [read less]

    Semi-automatic rifles should be banned. Most hunters dislike their use, they are commonly used in mass shootings, and a ban on semi-automatic rifles d…

    [read more]
    0
  • Juliah from Wisconsin

    I believe that the semi-automatic should be banned because there is almost no use for it. There is no reason a person should be able to own a gun that can kill so many people so fast. It has been over 200 years since the 2nd amendment was created, back then guns could only fire once every minute or so. Guns have evolved so much so the amendment should change accordingly too.

    [read less]

    I believe that the semi-automatic should be banned because there is almost no use for it. There is no reason a person should be able to own a gun that…

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from Texas

    There is no need for a semi-automatic weapon outside of the military. No one uses those types of guns for hunting. They were made for one purpose…. to kill people.

    0
  • Kyle from California

    I think the answer to this question is very clear and as I just had to write a research paper on this issue I have a lot of material to pull from. For example, since just the beginning of 2018, there have already been 36 “mass” shootings with 65 people being killed and 148 injured according to the Gun Violence Archive, which collects stats about the usage of guns in the United States.

    Assault weapons are clearly dangerous just like all weapons but they are not necessary as part of our second amendment rights. The second amendment is thus, “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.” Opponents of gun control argue that because of the part that says, “shall not be infringed” we can’t mess with gun rights at all because of this. But to quote from a HuffPost article, “If the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, mentally ill felons can own nuclear weapons. Children can own machine guns. Terrorists can bring hand grenades on airplanes, right? Because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. “Clearly like everything else in our government we must limit our freedom here to increase our safety. All Laws limit our freedom, but we agree to allow them to do so for the good of society. As for the other part of the argument that we need to protect ourselves from the government and foreign invaders I paraphrase Burke from HuffPost when I say, If the US government really wanted to become a monarchy what could we do with machine guns to stop nukes or armies of drones from the most powerful military in the world? As Burke says, “Background checks, a federal database tracking gun sale, or a ban on high capacity magazines are not going to change the equation.”

    An argument that many people use against instituting gun control is that mental health is the real issue. But if you look at the data and opinion of professionals in psychology that does not seem to be the case. Psychology today, the foremost news outlet for psychologists can be quoted to having said after the Parkland shooting in response to the President’s tweet blaming mental health as the underlying issue behind these mass shootings that, “As a professional behavioral scientist, I am disappointed by such a simple characterization of such a significant issue.”, and “There are at least two foundational causes as to why this event occurred. If we really care about our future, then we need to address both of these issues.” If the opinion of Dr. Geher, doesn’t convince you on this issue perhaps some data will help. Vox looking at data collected by Columbia Psychiatrist Michael Stone from his database of mass shooters found that “…only 52 out of the 235 killers in the database, or about 22 percent, had mental illnesses.” They then quote Michael Stone’s report, saying, “The mentally ill should not bear the burden of being regarded as the ‘chief’ perpetrators of mass murder,”. So clearly mental health is part of the problem, but I would hardly call 22% the chief issue when 100% of these killers had guns.

    It is clear based on the statistics that there is a problem and although it does exist in our mental health system there is a much larger problem with gun control.
    There are several arguments against instituting gun reform in America but the data says otherwise.
    I will end my argument by quoting Ronald Reagan on gun control “While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.”

    [read less]

    I think the answer to this question is very clear and as I just had to write a research paper on this issue I have a lot of material to pull from. For…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lizzie from California

    Personally, I think that semi-automatic weapons should be banned. Whether you are pro or gun control, we all have to realize that in America, we have an unparalleled amount of gun violence compared to other countries who are of a similar status when it comes to technology, economy, and mental health. Although I do see and agree with people who view guns as weapons for protection or for recreational purposes, it is way too easy for any one to get semi-automatic weapons and the accessories that can make them fully automatic. Even if you use/have guns solely for protection or for recreation, there is no reason convincing enough to have semi-automatic weapons available to the public. I am not saying that we should ban all guns, I think that would inspire more division and violence, especially during these sensitive times. However, I think that banning semi-automatics is not only a start, but it is a must. I have read many articles and heard many opinions on how banning guns wouldn’t help anything, that it’s the people who kill, and not the guns, and if that’s true, then why has there been all talk about mental health and no action? I think the worst Americans can do right now is nothing. Nothing turns into apathy and apathy has turned into mass shootings, mass murders, and desensitization. Banning semi-automatics would be action. It would not only be just for the protection of students and teachers and the public, but for the protection of the rights of people who already own guns. In banning semi automatic weapons, we would all be headed towards more of a compromise. Compromise would be bringing people together, instead of dividing and forcing one way or another. We all have to see this not as a pro or an anti gun control issue, not as a red or a blue issue, but as a gun violence issue. If you want gun violence to stop, you have to limit the number of guns. That, and vote.

    [read less]

    Personally, I think that semi-automatic weapons should be banned. Whether you are pro or gun control, we all have to realize that in America, we have …

    [read more]
    0
  • Kai from Nevada

    Semi-Automatic rifles serve no purpose except to kill, that is their only use. Of course guns are used in hunting and sport but not guns like the AR-15. Military grade weapons like the AR-15 should not be given to citizens because then why do we have a military in the first place? The second amendment is outdated and misinterpreted everyday. It was written in a time of fear and we didn’t have the government we have today. The assault weapons ban that ended in 2004 seemed to do a great job of making sure mass shootings weren’t as frequent. Your right to a gun doesn’t outweigh people’s right to life.

    [read less]

    Semi-Automatic rifles serve no purpose except to kill, that is their only use. Of course guns are used in hunting and sport but not guns like the AR-1…

    [read more]
    0
    • Victoria from New York

      Actually, recreational use of ARs is quite common. At shooting ranges, it is a favorite gun of many women due to its design’s ease of use for small forms. It is not a military grade firearm–those are in a different, fully automatic class, which citizens already do not have. Our military is for protecting us from foreign threats. Our citizenry must protect themselves and their neighbors here at home. The Second Amendment is not outdated; we need it as much now as we ever did. Just because people who fear current situtations don’t like what it says does not mean it means anything different than what it clearly says–that the right to own and bear owns (note it does not limit what kind) is a protected right. Technically, it is not even an Amendment to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights has its own preamble which declares it to be restrictive on the Constitution. Therefore, it must be obeyed even before the Constitution. The Department of Justice hosted a thorough review after their semi-automatic ban and concluded that it did not make a difference on crime. On the other hand, I hear of many cases where the government cannot react fast enough to save a life. Take the shooting at the Texas church, for example; there it was Stephen Willeford, the trained civilian with his AR-15, who was able to stop the murderer and save lives.

      [read less]

      Actually, recreational use of ARs is quite common. At shooting ranges, it is a favorite gun of many women due to its design’s ease of use for small f…

      [read more]
      0
  • Anna from Illinois

    The semi-automatic should be ban because the gun is to extreme. I believe that there are guns that are good for hunting, or for a shooting range I understand that. However, the semi-automatic is an overkill weapon. Even in hunting it is extreme. I just believe that we need to ban certain kinds of gun that have no purpose besides being extremely powerful. I do not believe that we should ban all guns, just some of the guns.

    [read less]

    The semi-automatic should be ban because the gun is to extreme. I believe that there are guns that are good for hunting, or for a shooting range I un…

    [read more]
    0
    • Victoria from New York

      For some of us smaller shooters, working other actions can be difficult. Semi-automatics allow us to enjoy responsible shooting. In fact, a semi-automatic action actually doesn’t make the firearms any slower or less “dangerous.” Experienced shooters can work a bolt or level action as fast as or almost as fast as a semi-auto. I shoot semi-automatic rifles regularly without killing anyone. It is the deranged people, not the firearm (which cannot aim and fire itself) which is the problem.

      [read less]

      For some of us smaller shooters, working other actions can be difficult. Semi-automatics allow us to enjoy responsible shooting. In fact, a semi-aut…

      [read more]
      0
    • William from Alaska

      I understand where you are coming from but ask you how your position can be constitutional. The second amendment clearly states, “…shall not be infringed.” This was also upheld in the Supreme Court when they ruled that government can not ban handguns. Therefore, how is your position constitutional?

      [read less]

      I understand where you are coming from but ask you how your position can be constitutional. The second amendment clearly states, “…shall not be in…

      [read more]
      0
    • Mcky from Missouri

      I sincerily think your wrong. You obviodly dont know much about guns, hunting, or target shooting. I have shot a deer with an ar-15 and they are good for predators, hogs, and many other things. I shoot it for target practice all the time as well. They are not overkill. They are also good home defense weapons.

      [read less]

      I sincerily think your wrong. You obviodly dont know much about guns, hunting, or target shooting. I have shot a deer with an ar-15 and they are good …

      [read more]
      0
    • Evan from Wisconsin

      According to my brother, some hunters like a pump-action gun better than a semi because the pump helps them stabilize the gun for the next shot and thus increase accuracy. Because of this fact, do we also have to ban pump-action guns? Where do you even start to draw the line? History shows that places with less gun laws have LESS crime. The fear that someone else has a gun that can hurt them is a reason for them to not get in a conflict with others or do something unlawful.

      [read less]

      According to my brother, some hunters like a pump-action gun better than a semi because the pump helps them stabilize the gun for the next shot and th…

      [read more]
      0
    • Payton from Wisconsin

      Semi-automatic rifles count for a minority of gun deaths in the US. The purpose for the Second Amendment is not really about hunting, and its not really about sport, its about defence against government tyranny.

      [read less]

      Semi-automatic rifles count for a minority of gun deaths in the US. The purpose for the Second Amendment is not really about hunting, and its not real…

      [read more]
      0
  • Jake from Ohio

    I think all assault rifles should be banned because these guns are the guns used in mass shootings and are the guns that cause the most damage.

    0
    • Matthew from Florida

      I don’t mean to be rude or disrespectful by nitpicking, but semi automatic rifles are not assault rifles. This is an important distinction to make, because “assault rifle” has become a buzzword that some people use to fear-monger and it’s important to make policy decisions based on fact, not emotions like fear.

      An assault rifle is a rifle that fires an intermediate sized cartridge like .223 or 5.56 and has the ability to switch between semi automatic fire and burst or fully automatic fire. Militarily, the only use for fully automatic fire is suppression while another soldier moves to a better firing position to disable/kill opposing soldiers with aimed semi automatic fire. An assault rifle allows soldiers to switch between these two roles at will which is why at least a plurality of soldiers in conventional militaries are equipped with assault rifles. The first assault rifle was the Sturmgewehr 44 and was made during WWII. Sturmgewehr 44 is German for “assault rifle 44” or “storm rifle 44.”

      “Assault rifle” is not a legal term, but “assault weapon” and “machine gun” are. An “assault weapon” is a term defined entirely by state legislation. A particular gun could be an “assault weapon” in one state but not in another. States have selected criteria such as name or manufacturer, or certain feature regardless of if these features change the lethality of the weapon. While it has a different meaning among people who are actually trying to describe a group of weapons, legally a “machine gun” is any automatic weapon. “Machine guns” have been all but banned in the united states since 1986 with the passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

      [read less]

      I don’t mean to be rude or disrespectful by nitpicking, but semi automatic rifles are not assault rifles. This is an important distinction to make, be…

      [read more]
      0
    • John from Alabama

      A shotgun, on average, is the deadlier weapon. A Thompson submachine gun is banned simply because it “looks scary” and was used by Al Capone’s famous gang members as a “drive-by shooting weapon.” Yet, it is less dangerous in the hands of a criminal than a shotgun. If you ban all assault rifles you are simply saying, “we want the criminal to use the more deadlier weapon so we can look good in front of the public.” Why not ban ALL guns so your globalists can take over with out much resistance.

      [read less]

      A shotgun, on average, is the deadlier weapon. A Thompson submachine gun is banned simply because it “looks scary” and was used by Al Capone’s famous …

      [read more]
      0
    • Matthew from North Carolina

      Please define what an “assault rifle” is.

      The FACT is that it is a fabricated term made-up by the Democrats in the 1980s in order to vilify “scary looking” firearms, and to support the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban, aka Brady Bill. the AWB/Brady Bill was enacted, and failed miserably to reduce gun crime, and was thus allowed to sunset (expire) without renewal. This proved that banning certain weapons is NOT effective in reducing gun crime, yet the Democrats keep doing the same thing, hoping for different results. Except now, the Democrats have come out of the closet and finally admitted that their true goal is to eradicate the Second Amendment.

      [read less]

      Please define what an “assault rifle” is.

      The FACT is that it is a fabricated term made-up by the Democrats in the 1980s in order to vilify “scary …

      [read more]
      0
    • Tom from Massachusetts

      Handguns make up an extreme majority of gun violence in the US. Rifles are about 300 deaths out of tens of thousands of weapon-related deaths. Source from FBI crime statistics and CDC if you want to look it up.

      [read less]

      Handguns make up an extreme majority of gun violence in the US. Rifles are about 300 deaths out of tens of thousands of weapon-related deaths. Source …

      [read more]
      0
  • Sydney from Ohio

    When someone has a good argument to why we need semi-automatics I might change my mind

    0
    • Blade from Georgia

      If someone wants to own a boat, do they have to be a fisherman? If someone wants an indoor pool, must they be an Olympic swimmer? If someone wants a pit bull, must they justify the need for the animal? Law abiding citizens who do no harm do not “need” a semi-automatic firearm, but that doesn’t matter. Our Constitutional rights are not predicated upon need.

      [read less]

      If someone wants to own a boat, do they have to be a fisherman? If someone wants an indoor pool, must they be an Olympic swimmer? If someone wants a p…

      [read more]
      0
    • Kyle from California

      In Response to J’s comment I paraphrase Burke from the HuffPost when I say, If the US government really wanted to become a monarchy what could we do with machine guns to stop nukes or armies of drones from the most powerful military in the world? As Burke says, “Background checks, a federal database tracking gun sale, or a ban on high capacity magazines are not going to change the equation.” As for home invasions, there is no research you couldn’t defend yourself with a handgun or a non-assault rifle.

      [read less]

      In Response to J’s comment I paraphrase Burke from the HuffPost when I say, If the US government really wanted to become a monarchy what could we do w…

      [read more]
      0
    • J from Pennsylvania

      Defense. If attackers come and invade your home, you can use semi-auto rifles. Sure you can use a different type of gun, but it works all the same. Self-defense is another reason you can own a rifle. It won’t be out in public much, but it works just like any other gun. It’s just faster.

      [read less]

      Defense. If attackers come and invade your home, you can use semi-auto rifles. Sure you can use a different type of gun, but it works all the same. …

      [read more]
      0
  • Brooke from Ohio

    I don’t know if there are any valid reasons for having an assault rifle

    0
    • Pat from Maryland

      Because the right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, the burden is not on justifying assault rifles but on proving that people should not have them. There cannot just be no reasons to have them, but there must be reasons to NOT have them.

      [read less]

      Because the right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, the burden is not on justifying assault rifles but on proving that people should not…

      [read more]
      0
    • J from Pennsylvania

      Protection. Self-defense. Family Defense. Home Defense. etc.

      0
  • Takoda from Virginia

    The CDC reports that there were a total of 2,712,630 deaths in 2015, 36,252 were gun related deaths. Most of those deaths are due to suicide and law enforcement officers. with the numbers that I am looking at, suicide and law enforcement officers make up nearly 80% of all gun related deaths. That leaves nearly 7000 gun related deaths (most of which from handguns) due to criminals and other various causes such as accidental discharges. Deaths due to suicide and law enforcement officers are unavoidable. A ban on semi-automatic weapons would save a negligible amount of lives if any. What we need to focus on is working to solve issues that kill a lot more people than guns. For example heart disease and cancer combine to make 45.4% (1,229,772 as reported by the CDC) of all deaths in the United States during 2015. Time, money, and effort should be spent trying to solve these issues and others like it. I think everyone would agree that less death is best, so instead of spending time arguing about a highly controversial issue, that would have a negligible effect on deaths if passed, lets spend our energy fighting for something everyone can support like finding ways to prevent and mitigate these medical issues.

    [read less]

    The CDC reports that there were a total of 2,712,630 deaths in 2015, 36,252 were gun related deaths. Most of those deaths are due to suicide and law …

    [read more]
    19
    • Dhanesh from New Hampshire

      Takoda you make a very valid point … why waste time on something this controversial when we could be solving something more prominent

      0
    • Takoda from Virginia

      Thank you for your support Olivia! I’m glad that we can agree that legislation to decrease the amount of people who die from heart disease and cancer is more important than banning semi-automatic rifles.

      [read less]

      Thank you for your support Olivia! I’m glad that we can agree that legislation to decrease the amount of people who die from heart disease and cancer …

      [read more]
      0
    • Olivia from North Carolina

      I definitely understand your argument! Law enforcement kills a large amount of people. I dislike the wording of this question because it limits everything to rifles only. I talked about semi-automatic guns in general because that is more relevant to the gun violence problem in America.

      I support you 100% with supporting medical advancements and promoting healthy lifestyles and diets (more dietary restrictions). What we allow and support our people to eat, do to themselves, and suffer from crippling illness is a disgrace. I think focusing on medical issues would also allow the country to sympathize with each other because we all have faced illness ourselves or in those we know and love. Seeing these terrible illnesses, disorders, and conditions that people must face may also put our problems in perspective and lower the constantly-growing anger that is pushing our society toward mass, senseless violence.

      [read less]

      I definitely understand your argument! Law enforcement kills a large amount of people. I dislike the wording of this question because it limits everyt…

      [read more]
      0
  • Mateo from Nevada

    I am of the opinion that the entire principle of “banning” both processes, engaging in activities, or possession of an inanimate object is rooted in either a fundamental distrust of humanity with liberty (very Hobbesian in nature), or, and perhaps more scary, a deep desire for totalitarian control over humanity. In the former case, banning the possession of a semi-automatic rifle firearm does what, exactly? Incentivize the black market and boost gun-running cartels for one, certainly. Even so, it limits the ability for private citizens to defend their lives and properties, in the name of reducing crime when in truth there is nigh no evidence to support the notion that a gun ban benefits gun safety. To my knowledge, it only exacerbates gang activities or gun violence. As for the latter case, well, there’s a reason that the protection of the right to bear arms for defense is protected against government encroachment within the organic law of the United States, the Constitution. The Constitution, to my enjoyment, creates and provides absolutely no right to the People of the United States. Indeed, and to my knowledge, grammatically, if you look at the 2nd Amendment, it is already a prerequisite and assumption that the “Right of the People to keep and bear arms” is already existing. Simply, the 2nd Amendment prohibits the Federal Government infringing upon the right of the People to bear arms for their self-defense and preservation both against foreign invaders and domestic threats. So, no, I don’t believe that semi-automatic rifles shold be banned.

    [read less]

    I am of the opinion that the entire principle of “banning” both processes, engaging in activities, or possession of an inanimate object is rooted …

    [read more]
    4
  • Payton from Wisconsin

    Banning semi-automatic rifles would not be effective. If the proposition is that banning semi-automatic rifles would stop gun violence, particularly mass shootings, then they would just use handguns, or work around the ban. Mass shootings account for a small percentage of gun deaths, so banning semi-automatic rifles to prevent mass shootings would not solve the problem of overall gun violence. To elaborate on that point, the vast majority of gun deaths are attributed to handguns. So if you really want to lower gun deaths, then the argument would be a blanket gun ban, which violates the second amendment.
    All this, however, does not even get into if this ban would be effective. People will commit violence any way possible. By gun, knife, car or bomb, they will wreak havoc. Banning semi-automatic rifles will do nothing but disarm the general population, leaving them defenceless in a time of danger. There are upwards of 10 million illegal immigrants in the US. If we cant keep people out, how can we expect to keep weapons out? This ban would cause a black market to form, which again leaves law-abiding citizens without guns.
    The second amendment states our right to keep and bear arms, to resist tyranny, foreign and domestic. The threat of a tyrannical government is always here, and we can see democratic governments turning tyrannical in the past. At the end of the day, the second amendment is not about hunting, and it’s not about sport, it is about our ability to protect a government encroaching on our freedom and liberty.

    [read less]

    Banning semi-automatic rifles would not be effective. If the proposition is that banning semi-automatic rifles would stop gun violence, particularly m…

    [read more]
    4
    • Payton from Wisconsin

      Before I start, i just want to say that if you want to discuss the banning of all semi-automatic weapons on a different platform I am completely open to that. I agree that this is the bigger issue in the gun debate. But for the time being I will only address my arguments to rifles, pertaining to the question asked.

      You first point is something that comes up a lot in gun debates. It’s an appeal to novelty or tradition, depending on the sense that you look at it. How can we still look to the Second Amendment because it was made in a time when X wasn’t here? My response to this is simple. Rights and principles don’t change. The founding fathers believed that the constitution granted certain inalienable rights to the citizens of the US. The second amendment specifically was allotted to keep the government from growing tyrannical, to embolden the power of the state and lessen the power of the federal government (federalist papers no. 46). Also, they did have technologically advanced weapons, per se, when the amendments were being formed. Although they were not widespread, the founding fathers would most likely see that technological advancement is going to happen (hence “Shall not be infringed”) We still have a right to resist the government encroaching on our rights, regardless of the technology of the day.

      I say that this is difficult, not because we shouldn’t try, but because I am making an appeal to the pragmatic. Guns are only a tool. Semi-automatic weapons result in less that 400 deaths per year, but we are looking to ban. There are different ways to go about saving lives than encroaching on the lives of people who obey the law. (this section of your rebuttal focused more on handguns, because those are the tools used in most crimes, so again, if you want to discuss that separately, we could have a better conversation)

      My point on illegal immigration is that we can barely stop people from crossing the border, let alone guns. The black market would grow if we disarmed the general populace, leaving them defenceless.

      The second amendment is bound in limiting government power. You seem to be conflating tyranny with the government. We have the right to resistance when the government encroaches on our constitutional rights, and tries to take control of the general populace through means of force. We have seen this happen in the past, and often one of the starting factors is taking away the power of the people. They did give us the right to petition peacefully, however, tyranny doesn’t take part in respecting the people.

      [read less]

      Before I start, i just want to say that if you want to discuss the banning of all semi-automatic weapons on a different platform I am completely open …

      [read more]
      0
    • Olivia from North Carolina

      I agree that banning rifles alone would not do much. We would have to use a blanket gun ban, but because semi-automatic weapons did not exist during the writing of the Constitution and were not a consideration, I do not see why it would violate the Second Amendment. They were defending manual weapons for militia purposes, not the mass production and sale of semi-automatic weapons of senseless violence.

      You are correct when you say that people will always find a way to commit crime, but I do not see why difficulty stops you from trying to save thousands, even millions of Americans. This country was not built on ease, simplicity, and convenience.

      Also, what does immigration have anything to do with this? That is a completely different issue and does not at all relate to guns. Guns are physical items designed, crafted, bought, sold, and transported by humans. Humans move themselves. If we stop moving guns, they won’t move on their own, but if I stop moving, that won’t stop everyone else from moving either. It is much easier for a person to go anywhere than a gun, so that has no comparison, only contrasts.

      There is nothing in the Second Amendment that even slightly references to resisting government tyranny. It says we have a right to a militia to protect our States, not to attack our own citizens and lawmakers. Where that argument is coming from I do not know, but there is no evidence of that in the Constitution, nor did our government say citizens had the right to violently attack the government. They gave us the right to petition the government and PEACEFULLY assemble, and those words are in the Constitution itself. It said peacefully for a reason, and that was to avoid another war and to keep us from senselessly killing our own fellow Americans.

      [read less]

      I agree that banning rifles alone would not do much. We would have to use a blanket gun ban, but because semi-automatic weapons did not exist during t…

      [read more]
      0
  • Matthew from North Carolina

    The Second Amendment is very clear when it says “Shall Not Be Infringed.” Thus, every firearms law is technically unconstitutional. Additionally, Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the US Constitution clearly states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

    “… A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

    Thus, banning of ANYTHING that was once legal is unconstitutional. Making criminals out of those who were law-abiding prior to any Ex Post Facto legislation or Bill of Attainder is equally unconstitutional. You can insert emotions and other nonsense into the argument, but they are irrelevant in the face of the US Constitution. Short of a constitutional convention, that will not change.

    [read less]

    The Second Amendment is very clear when it says “Shall Not Be Infringed.” Thus, every firearms law is technically unconstitutional. Additionally, Ar…

    [read more]
    4
    • Victoria from New York

      Thank you, Matthew, for bringing up this very important point.
      To all the naysayers, I understand your argument that some laws have to change with time. However, even if that be acceptable, this is a little different.
      At the time the U.S. Constitution was completed, many states were reluctant about accepting it. It did not sufficiently to their tastes protect their rights as states and the rights of their citizens.

      Thus we got the Bill of Rights.

      Now the Bill of Rights is a unique piece of our law. Technically, it is not the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. It has its own preamble which declares it to be restrictive on the Constitution, presented as an assurance to the states. Per that preamble, the Bill of Rights must be intact for the agreement between the federal government and the states that is our government to be upheld.

      The owning of firearms is part of those rights. If we lose this right, our government loses its validity.

      This is not like drugs or voting of women. Those are laws. This is part of the Bill of Rights. Public servants must uphold it or violate the trust of their position. If the Bill of Rights were ever struck down or changed, it would nullify our entire government. Let’s pray that doesn’t happen.

      Yes, every firearms law is unconstitutional. It is a matter of “Shall not be infringed.” Secondly, firearms laws are illegal, per the federal Dick Act passed in the early nineteen hundreds. Thirdly, as a matter for speculation, harmless firearms possession cannot be a crime because it hurts no one and even affects no one but the owner.

      But most importantly, firearms laws are null and unconstitutional because they attempt to take precedent over the highest law of our land. That is one, or if you wish, ten, pieces of United States Law that are out of the reach of politicians to change.

      [read less]

      Thank you, Matthew, for bringing up this very important point.
      To all the naysayers, I understand your argument that some laws have to change with ti…

      [read more]
      0
    • Olivia from North Carolina

      “Thus, banning of ANYTHING that was once legal is unconstitutional.”

      What you are saying is not only inaccurate but ignorant to the issues that grow and change as time passes in this country. Not making anything illegal would reek havoc on our society. We would not be a republican democracy but an anarchy.

      [read less]

      “Thus, banning of ANYTHING that was once legal is unconstitutional.”

      What you are saying is not only inaccurate but ignorant to the issues that gro…

      [read more]
      0
    • Briana from California

      ‘Thus, banning of ANYTHING that was once legal is unconstitutional’. The governments responsibility is to protect the govern. That comes in many forms. A prime example can be shown in the days of Jim crow laws, or slightly farther back the abolition of slavery. By using the statement that banning anything that was legal is unconstitutional, you are saying that banning slavery was a violation of constitutional rights. However I’m sure we can both agree that, the decision that was made was the right one.
      Furthermore many drugs that today are banned were once legal. Making the illegality of drugs such as cocaine, heroine, and LSD unconstitutional. Although once again I am sure we can both agree this was the best course of action, because it protects the American people.
      So while I respect your desire to keep semi-automatic weapons it is also the best course of action to at least create laws that would restrict the access to such weapons. Because as I am sure you have noticed it is the best course of action to protect the American people at the current time.

      [read less]

      ‘Thus, banning of ANYTHING that was once legal is unconstitutional’. The governments responsibility is to protect the govern. That comes in many forms…

      [read more]
      0
    • Nathan from Illinois

      Yeah. And when the authors wrote it, they didn’t nearly have the same lethal weapons we had– they had muskets.

      0
    • Abhiraman from Maryland

      However, if it wasn’t for repealing laws, African-Americans and women might not be allowed to vote. The Constitution is supposed to change with time, and reflect the current situation.

      [read less]

      However, if it wasn’t for repealing laws, African-Americans and women might not be allowed to vote. The Constitution is supposed to change with time, …

      [read more]
      0
  • John from California

    The thing with gun control is that you can make as many laws as there is to ban certain weapons but the bottom line is that people who intend to do harm, criminals doesn’t listen to those laws they break them. The only people that has to listen to them is us law-abiding citizens which puts us at risk because the criminal decides to rob a house or hurt someone and the lawmakers ban us from having semi-automatic weapons and the criminals have semi-automatic weapons and we only have pistols, the person with the better gun is going to win so therefore at the cost of us we lose with our lives. No matter what you do You Can’t Ban anything on weapons because people who break the law will still have them and you might say well why have laws then well these laws have to do with our right to guns and people who do not follow the law will have those weapons we do not. Not obviously citizens can’t have rocket launchers or mini guns or things like crazy but automatic semi-automatic or handguns should be allowed in the people’s arms for self-defense. This has a lot to do with people not guns back in the 50″s our children where highly disciplined and we had parents who were really strict. Back then kids and a lot of people had guns like rifled shotguns and all that however the difference is people knew not to go shoot up places . People in my opinion was much better now we have kids eating Tide pods and doing really stupid things.

    [read less]

    The thing with gun control is that you can make as many laws as there is to ban certain weapons but the bottom line is that people who intend to do ha…

    [read more]
    4
  • Anthony from Illinois

    An assault weapons ban was passed by President Clinton in 1994 and was in effect until 2004. During this time, we saw one of the first school shootings in recent American history at Columbine High School. While I and many others like me will be quick to denounce the actions taken by a man like Nikolas Cruz, there is an obvious blame here to be put on Parkland law enforcement officials. Law enforcement was alerted about this man and his actions somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times and no action was taken. The tragedy down in Parkland was only as bad as it was because the armed individuals of the school’s community were not using the tools available to resolve the situation. In recent weeks there has been another school shooting at a high school in Maryland. I would like to express my most sincere condolences to the family of the one fatality from the Maryland shooting. This shooting could have been much worse than it was, however, had the school’s police officer not have been able to respond within 1 minute and subdue the shooter with fatal blows from his firearm. When one contrasts the aforementioned Maryland shooting with the stories coming out of Parkland, Florida it becomes fairly obvious that guns, when used properly, are not just another means by which one can commit a murder. Rather they are a tool that can be used to protect oneself, one’s property, and other people from people that seek to inflict harm upon others.

    I would like to propose a question and a scenario to anybody who supports a restriction on what firearms can and can not be purchased. What exactly would be the ideal method of acquiring the millions of semi-automatic rifles already in circulation? A buyback program is the answer I personally have heard most frequently. In a country like The United States of America, however, where we pride ourselves on our freedom to choose what to do with our property there will be some people who will not bend and will choose to keep their firearms. History tells us that our government would then force these individuals into releasing possession of their property by punishing them with fines or incarceration, as is already happening in certain parts of Illinois. In this scenario, the government would be putting guns to the heads of the masses and demanding them to let go of their own firearms. The second amendment exists so that the general population can protect themselves from a tyrannical government. If we let the government aim guns at our heads and tell us what to do, then it is already too late and our great american experiment has failed.

    [read less]

    An assault weapons ban was passed by President Clinton in 1994 and was in effect until 2004. During this time, we saw one of the first school shooting…

    [read more]
    3
  • Isaac from New York

    The guns are not bad its the people who use them who are bad. A pencil is not bad when it is used by a student who cheats, a car is not bad when it is used by a drunk individual and kills a person. Therefore assault rifles are not evil, its the people who use them who are evil. A knife is far more dangerous than any gun, emergency expert’s say that because it is silent it can do more damage without causing such a quick alarm. It is not a gun problem it is a people problem.

    [read less]

    The guns are not bad its the people who use them who are bad. A pencil is not bad when it is used by a student who cheats, a car is not bad when it is…

    [read more]
    3
  • Hannah from Tennessee

    First, I think it is best to start with some basic definitions so that we are all on the same page. Besides old-fashioned revolvers, basically all guns are semi-automatic. To be a semi-auto, a gun merely automatically chambers another bullet after it is fired.

    If all semi-automatic rifles were banned, that would be completely against the second amendment. And even if we did ban them, it would not fix the problem of violence. The majority of violent crimes are committed with hands or feet, knives, and handguns. Banning rifles such as the AR-15 would not do anything to help prevent mass-shootings.

    If a criminal wants to get weapon, they will. The definition of a criminal is someone who doesn’t obey the law. So banning rifles will only mean that law-abiding citizens are kept from guns while criminals get the guns anyway.

    [read less]

    First, I think it is best to start with some basic definitions so that we are all on the same page. Besides old-fashioned revolvers, basically all gun…

    [read more]
    3
  • J from Pennsylvania

    “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.” The second amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Taking away weapons is another way of infringing.

    A weapon is only as good as it’s user. It is the evil people that shed negative lights on a particular type of gun. Can an assault rifle help a law abiding citizen protect his home? Yes. Can an evil person use assault rifles to hurt others? Yes. If banned, the bad guys would find another way. If you ban guns, you ban it from the law abiding citizens, not the criminals. For example, machine guns could still be purchased if assault rifles are banned. While harder to hide, they do just as much, if not more damage.

    In conclusion, 1. Banning Assault rifles will infringe on our Second Amendment Rights given in the Constitutions, and 2. It doesn’t stop the bad guys. It only harms the law-abiding citizen.

    [read less]

    “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.” T…

    [read more]
    3
    • J from Pennsylvania

      As the late senator Howard Metzenbaum said, “If you don’t ban all [guns], you might as well ban non of them.” The idea that people want to ban guns is resolved from a theory that less guns = less crimes. Australia got rid of their semi automatic rifles after a “buy back” in 1996. They got rid of around 1/4th of all rifles in Australia.

      If we apply this model to the United States, we find that 200 MILLION guns would still be left. (According to Nicholas Johnson, professor of Law at Fordham University)

      More research shows that rifles IN GENERAL are only 24 percent of mass shootings. Not all of these are semiautomatic. Some are Assault rifles (I did mistake that in my first argument above. I used the words “Assault Rifles” instead of “Semi-automatic rifles”. Assault rifles are fully automatic.) Some are bolt action, and THEN some are semi-automatic. Almost 50 percent of all shootings are Handguns, which are more easily concealed. 51 percent of all guns used in mass shootings are Handguns. Banning semi automatic rifles will not stop mass shootings, will still infringe on second amendment rights, and won’t even ban semi-automatic pistols. Semi-automatic pistols can still be used for self defense or shootings even if we ban semi-automatic rifles.

      Now I ask those who support banning semi-automatic rifles: How do you propose to ban these and collect all of the semi-automatic rifles in the United States, (Especially when gun bans have never been able to pass.) and on top of that, how do we insure that this won’t result in a flood of Semi-automatic rifles to the black market. How can we insure this will keep people safe when semi-automatic pistols (Guns that are easier to conceal.) are still in the hands of (both law-abiding citizens, and) criminals.

      [read less]

      As the late senator Howard Metzenbaum said, “If you don’t ban all [guns], you might as well ban non of them.” The idea that people want to ban guns i…

      [read more]
      0
    • Olivia from North Carolina

      You’re ignoring half of the Amendment. It states that a well regulated Militia is necessary, so people can carry arms. The militia is made up of the people. It talks about this being necessary to the security of a free State. Personal defense and usage does not compromise state or national security.

      [read less]

      You’re ignoring half of the Amendment. It states that a well regulated Militia is necessary, so people can carry arms. The militia is made up of the p…

      [read more]
      0
    • Grace from Texas

      We’re not asking to ban all guns. Just the ones that were specifically designed to murder. We aren’t trying to ban your pistol or hunting rifle. We want to ban semi-automatic weapons because they aren’t intended for self defense or hunting. They are intended for ending multiple people’s lives in a timely fashion.

      [read less]

      We’re not asking to ban all guns. Just the ones that were specifically designed to murder. We aren’t trying to ban your pistol or hunting rifle. We wa…

      [read more]
      0
  • Christian from Illinois

    Banning guns, or even a certain model will just cause crazy killers to kill with a different weapon, look at the U.K. they have lots of killings with knives.

    Also Criminals don’t follow the laws. Why the Cumbria shootings happened in the U.K.

    If they didn’t work across the pond, why would gun control work here.

    [read less]

    Banning guns, or even a certain model will just cause crazy killers to kill with a different weapon, look at the U.K. they have lots of killings with …

    [read more]
    3
    • Victoria from New York

      To answer Olivia, I would much rather not have to fight off a knife. I have a small form; anyone who intended me harm would not have too hard of a time. A gun is the great equalizer. A gun could, in several years, make me able to protect myself.

      Gun control has never and will never work. I’d rather get the training to protect my family with a gun, since I know criminals will always have them off the black market, than choose to let myself be a victim.

      [read less]

      To answer Olivia, I would much rather not have to fight off a knife. I have a small form; anyone who intended me harm would not have too hard of a ti…

      [read more]
      0
    • Olivia from North Carolina

      I agree with Kyle and Ricardo. To build of of Kyle’s Australia fact, last time their was a mass shooting, the entire country agreed to a buyback and ban of guns. They didn’t hesitate to save the lives of their own. We should do the same, especially since most guns criminals steal are from law-abiding citizens, not gun shops. Anyone having guns could end up indirectly supplying criminals with dangerous weapons. Even if taking away guns did nothing, isn’t it better to try to help people than to just sit back and let people die because we don’t want to go through the trouble? And I agree with Ricardo; I would much rather fight off a knife than a gun. There’s nothing you can do to a prepared and intelligent criminal with a gun, but a knife is avoidable. Just because something didn’t work somewhere else doesn’t mean it won’t work here. Our countries are very different in law and culture.

      [read less]

      I agree with Kyle and Ricardo. To build of of Kyle’s Australia fact, last time their was a mass shooting, the entire country agreed to a buyback and b…

      [read more]
      0
    • Ricardo from Florida

      First off gun control has worked “across the pond.” The U.S. has had more school shootings since January of 2018 alone than the rest of the world combined the past 20 years. Secondly, you say crazy killers will find other weapons to kill with. Ask any shooting victim if they’d rather fight off someone with a gun or someone with a knife. Assault weapons make killing easy.

      [read less]

      First off gun control has worked “across the pond.” The U.S. has had more school shootings since January of 2018 alone than the rest of the world …

      [read more]
      0
    • Kyle from California

      There are so many places that have banned guns that each side could point to an example that proves there point. For example Australia since their buyback and ban of all guns they haven’t had a single mass shooting. You could go back and forth forever with different examples and counterexamples but if you look at the world as a whole to paraphrase the HuffPost the stats indicate that places with more guns tend to have more gun deaths it’s not always true but it’s usually true and if something is usually true it seems foolish not to try it here.

      [read less]

      There are so many places that have banned guns that each side could point to an example that proves there point. For example Australia since their buy…

      [read more]
      0
  • Caitlin from New Hampshire

    This is a very controversial topic, and I am very torn in my opinion. A yes or no answer for this question is almost impossible. I chose no because I feel most strongly about that, but I also agree with the arguments submitted into the yes category. There are so many things that play a big role in this topic and itś hard to say what will happen if any laws are enforced. If we ban handguns maybe the deaths and violence will go down, but what if it doesn’t? What if banning guns gives criminals a new motivation to break laws and hurt people? On the contrary, what if we don’t ban guns and crime rates triple? It’s so hard to make a good choice about this issue that will be beneficial. I think we should follow in the footsteps of other countries. If they banned guns and crime rates went down, then we should do the same. Or if they came up with a different way to reduce crime, then we should try that. At this point, we need to start making changes, and not wait years for a law to pass. If we can teach new generations what is right, and give more help to those who have mental problems, then crime might go down. We could also create more thorough tests for those who want to carry a firearm, to make sure they have the mental capacity and good morals for using it. There are so many things we can do NOW to prevent this. Doing many small things could make a big impact on deaths and crime. As one previous person said, we can spend our time and resources on other things, like curing cancer. This issue is very talked about and it seems as though there is no end to the crime and school shootings. There is, but it only comes with action. This country needs to make big changes, whether itś banning guns, or not.

    [read less]

    This is a very controversial topic, and I am very torn in my opinion. A yes or no answer for this question is almost impossible. I chose no because I …

    [read more]
    2
  • James from Kentucky

    No I do not think that Automatic Rifles should be banned. But I do believe that laws on these guns must be more strict. I think that the biggest problem is almost anyone can get this type of weapon. If they were to ban these guns then a lot of people would be unhappy. We have a right o own a weapon, but that does not mean that almost everyone should be allowed to own a weapon of this caliber. I think that if gun laws are more strict and not as lax, then their will not be as many disasters in America.

    [read less]

    No I do not think that Automatic Rifles should be banned. But I do believe that laws on these guns must be more strict. I think that the biggest probl…

    [read more]
    2
  • Gideon from Oklahoma

    Semi auto only means that when you fire a bullet another is already loaded into the chamber to be fired, as opposed to cocking the gun for every bullet. Almost every gun in the world that is not a machine gun is semi auto. Stop making a big deal about it. It is now clear and present that this is simply another step towards tyranny and banning of all guns, like Chicago cough-cough Chi’raq cough. The founding fathers put the 2nd Amendment into the constitution to preserve all other amendments and articles. How are we supposed to fight a tyrannical government when our weapons are out matched?

    [read less]

    Semi auto only means that when you fire a bullet another is already loaded into the chamber to be fired, as opposed to cocking the gun for every bulle…

    [read more]
    2
  • Gabe from Iowa

    The ratio from people who will hurt someone with a gun to someone who will not is very low. Plus the guns don’t kill people people do, for example I own a semi-automatic rifle, but I haven’t hurt anyone with it. We should focus on the type of people not on the type of gun. Someone can kill people with most every type of gun, but it is the will of the person with the gun that kill people, not the gun itself.

    [read less]

    The ratio from people who will hurt someone with a gun to someone who will not is very low. Plus the guns don’t kill people people do, for example I o…

    [read more]
    2
  • Joshua from New Hampshire

    Gimme a minute, my gun just jumped off the dresser and now it’s trying to kill me. Because that makes so much sense. Say i was a murderer. if I pull the trigger on someone then the gun killed that person? no, I did. I pulled the trigger. all the gun does is sit there. it’s inanimate. it doesn’t move unless you make it. why would you wanna get rid of them for people use them for protection? no criminal is not gonna get a gun or do something stupid. if I have a handgun I can protect myself and if I didn’t… that’s a clean kill. drop dead.

    [read less]

    Gimme a minute, my gun just jumped off the dresser and now it’s trying to kill me. Because that makes so much sense. Say i was a murderer. if I pull t…

    [read more]
    1
    • Austin from New Hampshire

      good job josh

      0
    • Jack from New Hampshire

      Josh. I agree with your point an suggest the problem of bump-stocks. And I like the fire in your attitude.

      0
  • Aiden from New Hampshire

    People say that other countries banned guns and it worked well in other countries well in 1997 Australia banned guns and went around and took peoples guns well after that point their gun-related crimes went up almost %50 and their robberies went up %23, in Switzerland pretty much every man has a gun and their gun crime is the lowest in any country in New Hampshire the state where I live has some of the loosest gun laws in the united states but we also have some of the lowest crime in the united states.Should we ban semi-automatic guns no we should not for everybody that wants to do harm with a gun there is somebody that wants to defend themselves with a firearm.

    [read less]

    People say that other countries banned guns and it worked well in other countries well in 1997 Australia banned guns and went around and took peoples …

    [read more]
    1
  • Lillianna from New Hampshire

    No, the gun is not the reason why people are dying or getting shot it’s the person behind the gun. Guns are just used for the shooting their, not the ones to blame. The finger that pulled the trigger is to blame, the gun has no choice. No say in what it does.

    [read less]

    No, the gun is not the reason why people are dying or getting shot it’s the person behind the gun. Guns are just used for the shooting their, not the …

    [read more]
    1
  • Katelynn from New Hampshire

    Nothing’s against the guns it’s the people that chose to shoot people because their life is bad and they feel like they should take everyone else down with them even though that’s wrong. On top of that, it violates the 2nd amendment.

    [read less]

    Nothing’s against the guns it’s the people that chose to shoot people because their life is bad and they feel like they should take everyone else down…

    [read more]
    1
  • Tom from New Hampshire

    I believe it would be unwise to ban these firearms. They can be a major part too the protection of our country. Even if we do outlaw these weapons, criminals or other lawbreakers will always try to find a way to collect these. Additionally, the large majority of gun-related deaths are from handguns or pistols. If we ban these weapons, it most definitely will not stop these kinds of mass shootings. And handguns can definitely be automatic, like the rifles.

    [read less]

    I believe it would be unwise to ban these firearms. They can be a major part too the protection of our country. Even if we do outlaw these weapons, cr…

    [read more]
    1
  • Arwyn from New Hampshire

    They should not be banned because of the DoI says that the right to bear weapons is protected from being taken away, Also it’s not the guns that kill people other people kill people. Thee are our right and we need to protect them.

    [read less]

    They should not be banned because of the DoI says that the right to bear weapons is protected from being taken away, Also it’s not the guns that kill …

    [read more]
    1
  • Austin from New Hampshire

    they should not be banned because a semi-auto rifle is not as deadly as the automatic. the gu is only good for shooting animals int eh woods. and if the gun is not banned they it should be about of money to get it and you need to be over 18. and you need to have a license to get the gun. and I like shooting guns and it is fun so it should not be band

    [read less]

    they should not be banned because a semi-auto rifle is not as deadly as the automatic. the gu is only good for shooting animals int eh woods. and if t…

    [read more]
    1
  • Jack from New Hampshire

    People may believe that a semi-auto handgun or rifle is one step away from a fully-automatic rifle and thus may support the opinion that they should be banned. The Florida School Shooting causality count was only so high because of the recent introduction to Bump-Stocks. If these were outlawed the public opinion may change over the course of a week. Another factor to consider is the number of people in school shootings with depression, suicidal thoughts, and mental problems. This proves that guns themselves aren’t dangerous. The people who carry them are. Lets motion for more background checks and more strict gun control. Not removal. The banning of semi-autos will not stop as many catastrophes as if we provide better gun screening. Please consider before you vote.

    [read less]

    People may believe that a semi-auto handgun or rifle is one step away from a fully-automatic rifle and thus may support the opinion that they should b…

    [read more]
    1
  • Elizabeth from Kentucky

    In my opinion, semi-automatic rifles, or really any kind of gun for that matter should not be banned. First and foremost, the second amendment of the Constitution states that we have the right to bear arms. Secondly, I believe that the weapon is not the problem in an situation or circumstance, it is the person behind that weapon that we should be worried about. A gun does not decide to get up and commit a mass shooting, it is the person with possession of the gun. This being said, I do think there should be stricter gun laws instituted for semi-automatic rifles and guns in general. Also, there should be extensive background checks on people wishing to buy a gun, a minimum age set in place in order to buy a gun, and some sort of mental health check to ensure that the people who are obtaining these weapons have little to zero chance of committing such a horrendous act as a mass shooting. The guns are not the problem, they allow people to feel safe in their homes and have an object of self-defense. It is the people in possession of these guns that we should be so worried about.

    [read less]

    In my opinion, semi-automatic rifles, or really any kind of gun for that matter should not be banned. First and foremost, the second amendment of the…

    [read more]
    1
  • Ian from Kentucky

    The ban on semi-automatic rifles will not be encouraging the support of improvement of mental health and will be taking away the rights of American citizens. Yes, a gun of any kind can kill a substantial number of people, but so can a lot of other legal things in America. It’s well known that there have been bombings and stabbings around the world that were just as deadly, if not a little bit more, than shootings in America. The guns are not the issue here, the real problem is the way that we as a society treat those with mental illnesses. Instead of money being spent on gun reforms, mental hospitals could be constructed and a staff could be paid. America needs better accessible care for the mentally ill, rather than blame one way of destruction for the actions of a terrorists or mentally sick people.

    [read less]

    The ban on semi-automatic rifles will not be encouraging the support of improvement of mental health and will be taking away the rights of American ci…

    [read more]
    1
  • Quentin from Kentucky

    Yes guns are dangerous and are responsible for taking billions of lives away. However, how did we win past wars? With guns. I would appreciate a society where no one has guns in their possession, but there are still some people who can make living really tough. What are we supposed to do if a situation gets out of hand and we are too far to do anything? The law has guns for a reason and anyone who has guns should be intelligent. I think that gunners should earn some sort of license before they buy a gun. It also can’t be used in front of people. Just pull it out when the situation demands you to use the gun in your pouch.

    [read less]

    Yes guns are dangerous and are responsible for taking billions of lives away. However, how did we win past wars? With guns. I would appreciate a socie…

    [read more]
    1
  • Hunter from Kentucky

    No why would we get rid of Semi-Automatic Rifles? We have a shooting happen everyday and no one seems to care about that but god bless let us get rid of the AR-15 because it is dangerous. First, The AR-15 is not automatic which means it can only fire one bullet at a time like every other rifle you can buy in a gun store. The AR-15 carries a smaller bullet than any of those other rifles in the store. People are mainly afraid of the AR-15 because it is black and looks sinister. Did you know that when people say gun violence is the most dominate in the U.S that they are lying. Most murders are through knife with in second suicide and in third is guns. When you narrow down the gun category. The AR-15 is not even in the top 5 when it comes to killing people as what the top 3 are handguns. The AR-15 shows no harm to anyone as the gun does not do the damage as it is the person that does it. People say oh you cannot hunt with an AR-15 that is a military grade weapon. Well guess what buttercup it is actually used to hunt ducks and many other birds as an easier way to fire instead of a shotgun where you have limited rounds. People need to evaluate themselves and understand that semi-automatic rifles are legal and will always be legal as they show no threat to anyone that is actually sane.

    [read less]

    No why would we get rid of Semi-Automatic Rifles? We have a shooting happen everyday and no one seems to care about that but god bless let us get rid …

    [read more]
    1
  • annie from Kentucky

    I think no. Semi-automatic guns aren’t only the problem. There is a wide range of guns that could do damage, but with that being said, I follow the saying, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” It’s not the guns that are the problem. It’s the people who are violent and disrupted. If semi guns are banned, the people who really want to do destruction are going to find another gun to get it done. Guns will not cause any harm unless people are irresponsible and use them incorrectly. With that being said, I think that process to get a gun could be more in depth, but no guns should be banned.

    [read less]

    I think no. Semi-automatic guns aren’t only the problem. There is a wide range of guns that could do damage, but with that being said, I follow the sa…

    [read more]
    1
  • Tanner from Kentucky

    I think that Semi-Automatic Rifles shouldn’t be banned because it goes against our Second Amendment Rights. Also like someone else has stated Semi-Automatic Rifles are not responsible for a lot of the shootings that happen in the United States every year. The type of guns that are used for most shootings and crimes are pistols or other forms of weapons like knives. So the Government and the people who are complaining about the Rifles need to focus on more important stuff like the Death Penalty and how that needs to change in certain states.

    [read less]

    I think that Semi-Automatic Rifles shouldn’t be banned because it goes against our Second Amendment Rights. Also like someone else has stated Semi-Aut…

    [read more]
    1
  • Cathy from Kentucky

    I think that semi automatic rifles should not be banned because they are a part of a person’s rights, however I believe that more precautions should be taken with the sale of semi automatic weapons, such as raising the minimum age to buy one. We have a right to weapons themselves as self defense and for other purposes, but we shouldn’t necessarily just be able to have weapons without any restrictions, therefore, I think that we should be able to purchase semi automatic weapons, but only with certain restrictions.

    [read less]

    I think that semi automatic rifles should not be banned because they are a part of a person’s rights, however I believe that more precautions should b…

    [read more]
    1
  • MIkaili from Kentucky

    No, semi-automatic weapons should not be banned. It is our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and we should not get that taken away. I think we should have more restrictions on these guns and get a better look at the people buying them. People should have to go through a background check and a mental evaluation to make sure they are in the right state of mind. IF the pass both of these then they should be allowed to purchase a gun. Taking away our guns is not okay. But putting more restrictions on them to protect other people is okay.

    [read less]

    No, semi-automatic weapons should not be banned. It is our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and we should not get that taken away. I think we should …

    [read more]
    1
  • Sean from Kentucky

    Semi-Automatic rifles should not be banned. I do not believe they should be banned because guns aren’t living objects that do not cause any undeserved harm to people unless they are used incorrectly, which isn’t the gun’s fault. People will always find a way to kill each other no matter what gets taken away. More people die every year from car wrecks and other traffic accidents than from guns, but the government never debates on taking away cars. The American citizens have the right to protect themselves and to bear arms, and to strip them of this right would be going against everything the country stands for. Guns don’t cause school shootings, people do. If a person chooses to bring a gun to school, they should be held accountable for their actions, not the everyday American. A majority of people who own semi-automatic rifles do not cause mass shootings, it’s not fair to punish a majority of people for what a minority of people are doing.

    [read less]

    Semi-Automatic rifles should not be banned. I do not believe they should be banned because guns aren’t living objects that do not cause any undeserved…

    [read more]
    1
  • nick from Kentucky

    I cant say no completely because they are good hunting rifles and in the hands of well trained people they are ok. But i do believe that to own a semi automatic rifle you should need a special license. Kinda like a car and a bike you need a separate license for each vehicle and that should be the same for rifles vs a handgun. there should be stricter laws about buying rifles of this size. but there should be no modifications allowed to the gun such as extended mags, silencers, lock barrel, or any other modifications.

    [read less]

    I cant say no completely because they are good hunting rifles and in the hands of well trained people they are ok. But i do believe that to own a semi…

    [read more]
    1
  • joshua from Kentucky

    No, I don’t believe the Semi Automatic guns should be banned. There are two main reasons, one being that it is protected in the constitution under the second amendment. The second being that a shotgun with buckshot is a lot more dangerous than a semi automatic rifle. A single 3 inch shell is like 20 bullets in one, and they are faster to reload than a rifle magazine. Shotguns will not be banned because they are tools for people, they hunt with them, and they use them for personal protection, the same is true for most semi automatic rifles. Saying this, I do agree that there needs to be a better screening system for people who want to buy them.

    [read less]

    No, I don’t believe the Semi Automatic guns should be banned. There are two main reasons, one being that it is protected in the constitution under the…

    [read more]
    1
  • Evan from Kentucky

    I do not believe that these types of weapons should be banned. However, I do believe that the ability to obtain these weapons should be met with a vast background check. The vast majority of people that use these weapons do not use them to harm others. Society has blown this issue way out of proportion by letting a few “bad apples” spoil the whole lot.

    [read less]

    I do not believe that these types of weapons should be banned. However, I do believe that the ability to obtain these weapons should be met with a vas…

    [read more]
    1
  • Elizabeth from Kentucky

    No, semi-automatic weapons should not be banned. Banning these weapons would go against our second amendment. Also, banning these weapons won’t stop criminals and/or people with bad intentions from doing bad things; they will find another way to do harm. There are many citizens who follow the law and deserve the right to own these weapons.

    [read less]

    No, semi-automatic weapons should not be banned. Banning these weapons would go against our second amendment. Also, banning these weapons won’t stop c…

    [read more]
    1
  • Elizabeth from Kentucky

    Personally, I do not think that semi-automatic assault rifles should be banned. Furthermore, I don’t believe that and type of gun should be banned from people unless a criminal record or a faulty background is brought into the equation. Guns don’t automatically shoot people or things, people do. The reasoning that some people may have to argue my point is that guns kill people. Well, you could kill someone with anything: a knife, a hammer, a rock, and the list goes on and on. People are becoming so hostile about guns just because it is the “easiest” and most often used weapon to kill people. Not a single one of these inanimate objects kill others, the people that complete the action with the weapons do. Therefore, I do not believe that semi-automatic rifles, along with other guns, should be banned.

    [read less]

    Personally, I do not think that semi-automatic assault rifles should be banned. Furthermore, I don’t believe that and type of gun should be banned f…

    [read more]
    1
  • Peyton from Kentucky

    Banning guns will not solve the problem of school shootings. Period. If you ban semi-automatic guns then kids will find different ways to cause harm; Knives, bombs, poisons, etc. It’s not hard to work around that. If you want to ban guns to cause less terrorism or violence that’s not going to work either. America will stop selling semi-automatic weapons. The other countries won’t. So if people want to acquire automatic weapons they can simply find a way to smuggle weapons and possibly increase the amount of gun trafficking. This will result in money falling into criminal hands. Which may cause even more violence and shootings! Banning semi-automatic guns will not stop killers. If your response is “Well there’ll be less deaths because of the ban!”, that’s not solving the problem. That’s working around it. It’s not worth our second amendment to cause “less deaths” (if that even happens) because of the ban.

    [read less]

    Banning guns will not solve the problem of school shootings. Period. If you ban semi-automatic guns then kids will find different ways to cause harm; …

    [read more]
    1
  • Melanie from Kentucky

    I think that semi-automatic rifles should not be banned from the United States because it does go against second amendment rights. When speaking to family members about this topic we all come to the agreement that mass killings are not because of the gun, even if you take people’s guns away, there will always be those who will hide them or get them illegally. Even if things are illegal, such as drugs, people still do them. I feel that banning semi-automatic rifles will not fix the problem. I do agree on banning bump stocks and improving the background check system.

    [read less]

    I think that semi-automatic rifles should not be banned from the United States because it does go against second amendment rights. When speaking to fa…

    [read more]
    1
  • Josie from Kentucky

    Although I am completely against the use of any type of weapon that could cause such mass destruction, I do not think the semi-automatic rifles should be banned. If they were to be banned, people would still find a way to purchase them illegally which already occurs today. Banning them would only harm the 2nd Amendment, which does need to be updated, but would only anger many people. I think we need more gun control. We need to raise awareness for this stuff instead of just banning it. People who are unstable should not be able to purchase them and there should be longer, more in depth background checks. Banning these weapons would not solve anything and would most likely create more harm to others.

    [read less]

    Although I am completely against the use of any type of weapon that could cause such mass destruction, I do not think the semi-automatic rifles should…

    [read more]
    1
  • Steve from Kentucky

    No, The idea that banning all semi automatic rifles will stop all acts of violence around the country is based on ideas that are not backed up by any information. Mass shootings may be brought to lower numbers but a lot of people would lose what they consider necessary protection. The background checks people go through when purchasing a weapon help keep these guns out of the wrong hands. This is also a direct violation of everyone’s second amendment right.

    [read less]

    No, The idea that banning all semi automatic rifles will stop all acts of violence around the country is based on ideas that are not backed up by any …

    [read more]
    1
  • Gregory from Kentucky

    No, semi-automatic rifles should not be banned. It is a constitutional right for people to own a gun. It is not the guns that need to be banned but instead some people should not be allowed to own a gun, but even then people could still get guns illegally. There is nothing that can be done for banning guns. It is a constitutional right, and should remain one. The best thing to be done to end gun violence is to have more people own guns. If a shooter went in somewhere knowing there were people on the premises with a gun the shooter would more than likely be discouraged to follow through with the shooting.

    [read less]

    No, semi-automatic rifles should not be banned. It is a constitutional right for people to own a gun. It is not the guns that need to be banned but in…

    [read more]
    1
  • Elijah from Wisconsin

    Semi-Automatic rifles should not be banned. The first reason is to protect citizens against government tyranny. The 2nd Amendment clearly gives citizens the right to bear arms. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to decrease shootings, but a check on the federal government. A ban on Semi-Automatic rifles would disarm innocent citizens, and the only people with the guns would be criminals and the government. Many people believe the 2nd Amendment can be violated to help the American people; however, this is a flawed mindset. Simply put, the ends do not justify the means. This mindset violates the rule of law. The entire purpose of a limited government and laws is to stop the government from doing anything. Even violating one part of the Constitution undermines the entire Constitution.
    Further, a ban on Semi-Automatic rifles would be ineffective. In 1994, the United States banned semi- automatic guns and ended the ban in 2004. Why? Because the ban did nothing to stop gun violence. A 2005 report from the National Research Council stated that “A recent evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes.” A 2004 study by the National Institute of Justice found that while the ban appeared to have reduced the number of crimes committed with assault weapons, any benefits were likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semi automatics. Banning Semi-Automatic rifles would just increase the demand for other guns. Why don’t we just ban all guns? Banning all guns would just increase the black market. When Semi-Automatic rifles are legal, the system is transparent. A criminal is going to break the law; therefore, the government making something illegal will do nothing.
    Also, gun deaths have steadily declined since 1994, even though the rate of gun ownership has climbed. Rifles account for only about 3% of criminal gun deaths. A recent shooting could have been stopped. The shooter was a person with a mental illness; however, the FBI did nothing to stop this person from obtaining a gun. If Semi-Automatic rifles were banned, the government would not know who is getting guns illegally. Banning Semi-Automatic rifles would literally be shooting ourselves in the foot (pun intended).

    [read less]

    Semi-Automatic rifles should not be banned. The first reason is to protect citizens against government tyranny. The 2nd Amendment clearly gives citize…

    [read more]
    1
  • Nathan from Pennsylvania

    Most of the issues that happen are due to mental issues, or people who have been banned from owning weapons gets there hand on one. I have weapons, hand guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, etc. but in the same sense I am trained with my weapons and I keep them locked up. I have permits for my weapons. All of my weapons are registered. All of my weapons that are specialized I have specialized permits for. I have done ground checks left and right. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Guns should not be banned or controlled with those that are able to have them.

    [read less]

    Most of the issues that happen are due to mental issues, or people who have been banned from owning weapons gets there hand on one. I have weapons, ha…

    [read more]
    1
  • Kristian from Ohio

    Although something is used in an assault, it doesn’t mean that it classifies as an assault weapon.If I smack someone, are you going to take my hand away for it being an assault hand? I think not.

    [read less]

    Although something is used in an assault, it doesn’t mean that it classifies as an assault weapon.If I smack someone, are you going to take my hand aw…

    [read more]
    1
    • Kyle from California

      This is very true but what in the slightest does it have to do with the issue at hand. There is a clear definition of an assault weapon and there is no reason for people outside of the military to have one.

      To quote from former president Ronald Reagan discussing the original assault weapons ban “While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.”

      [read less]

      This is very true but what in the slightest does it have to do with the issue at hand. There is a clear definition of an assault weapon and there is n…

      [read more]
      0
    • Brian from Ohio

      Simply a childish analogy. The issue isn’t so much the rifle (although the tumbling motion of a bullet out of an AR-15 or an AK-47 is different from a “regular” hunting rifle) but large capacity magazines. Those truly makes it an assault rifle over my regular single-shot rifles.

      [read less]

      Simply a childish analogy. The issue isn’t so much the rifle (although the tumbling motion of a bullet out of an AR-15 or an AK-47 is different from a…

      [read more]
      0
    • Kai from Nevada

      Your hand isn’t made to kill, a gun is. There’s a big difference from slapping someone and killing someone.

      0
    • Selena from Texas

      I agree with Kristian (from Ohio) just because are miss using certain objects doesn’t mean you should take it away from everybody. They just need to put some restrictions on them like they do with everything else. Why punish everyone for other peoples misdeeds. That’s like saying, “Hey, someone in Texas shot up a school so now you’re going to jail for it.” How much sense does that make?

      [read less]

      I agree with Kristian (from Ohio) just because are miss using certain objects doesn’t mean you should take it away from everybody. They just need to p…

      [read more]
      0
  • Ethan from Ohio

    We have our 2nd amendment right to bear arms and by taking the weapons away it’s like taking away the amendment.

    1
    • Sarah from New Hampshire

      So true. Even if rights can be altered to fit needs of today’s country, you should not take away an entire right.

      0
  • Michael from Ohio

    People kill people, they just so happen to use guns.

    1
    • Banana from New Hampshire

      Well said, not like guns are the most useful

      0
    • owen from New Hampshire

      well said michael

      0
  • Lucas from Wyoming

    Answer me this. If you were in the situation at Parkland High School, and I offered to sell you a loaded semi-auto rifle to defend yourself, you would take it immediately without hesitation. But, I would never be able to show up randomly to arm you so…you must be prepared. The CDC reports that 500,000-3,000,000 people annually are saved by firearms, especially from semi-auto pistols. The worst thing any leadership or government can ever do is disarm its own citizens.

    [read less]

    Answer me this. If you were in the situation at Parkland High School, and I offered to sell you a loaded semi-auto rifle to defend yourself, you woul…

    [read more]
    0
  • Liam from Virginia

    Guns are used in self-defense scenarios and save more lives than lives lost in other situations. Banning semi-automatic weapons won’t stop criminals from getting them, and won’t stop violence. Banning semi-automatic weapons puts our citizens in more danger.

    [read less]

    Guns are used in self-defense scenarios and save more lives than lives lost in other situations. Banning semi-automatic weapons won’t stop criminals …

    [read more]
    0
  • anthony from California

    I believe we should not ban semi automatic weapons for multiple reasons, my main reason is the united states having a second amendment and i believe we should uphold that. We have already gotten rid of automatic weapons,in which i agree with that decision i don’t believe getting rid of all semi automatic weapons is going to solve any problems and is really just taking away our rights.

    [read less]

    I believe we should not ban semi automatic weapons for multiple reasons, my main reason is the united states having a second amendment and i believe w…

    [read more]
    0
  • nate from California

    the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to own guns, I do not think there is a need to ban them. There will always be people who get them illegally anyways so it would not help.

    0
  • Harrison from California

    There is no proof that a ban would actually acheive its intended purposes, which is to remove semi-automatic rifles from the US. It would more likely promote black market and illegal sales of the weapons, which means just more illegal weapons, rather then many legal weapons that the government can keep an eye on at least.

    [read less]

    There is no proof that a ban would actually acheive its intended purposes, which is to remove semi-automatic rifles from the US. It would more likely …

    [read more]
    0
  • Preston from Missouri

    I think semi-automatic rifles are completely acceptable and shouldn’t be banned. I think banning a certain gun like this is interfering with our second right. In the right to bare arms. People have the right to own a weapon under regulations. These semi-automatic weapons aren’t killing people, its the person actually using the rifle. Taking these type of guns away wont change anything because criminals can still get there hands on these automatic guns.

    [read less]

    I think semi-automatic rifles are completely acceptable and shouldn’t be banned. I think banning a certain gun like this is interfering with our secon…

    [read more]
    0
  • Carter from Missouri

    I don’t think that semi-automatic rifles should be banned. I think that every citizen has a right to bear arms (it’s in the constitution). Taking away this right is a violation of our right to bear arms. I know a lot of people have opinions over this topic and mine is that they shouldn’t be banned. I think their is certain setting where they definitely should not be allowed in. Some of those settings would include schools settings and many others. I think they should only be allowed to a certain extent. Their are places where they are accepted like shooting ranges or while hunting or in a way where you have no other option in defending yourself.

    [read less]

    I don’t think that semi-automatic rifles should be banned. I think that every citizen has a right to bear arms (it’s in the constitution). Taking away…

    [read more]
    0
  • Max from Alaska

    Reason being that I say yes is that semiautomatic rifles are a constitutional right that many American citizens use everyday to protect themselves and their families from harm. Every if you think that a bad on the guns will take away from the bad guys who miss use them your wrong the bad guys will get them no matter what. So this is why I believe in semi automatic rifles as defense.

    [read less]

    Reason being that I say yes is that semiautomatic rifles are a constitutional right that many American citizens use everyday to protect themselves and…

    [read more]
    0
  • Katel from Alabama

    I don’t personally think assault rifles should be banned. People act like guns are the thing killing people. Well somebody has to pull the trigger. It’s like saying your car is the reason people die in car crashes. Yeah they’re right, but somebody has to put the car in drive and press the gas. Same thing for a gun. Somebody has to put a bullet in it and pull the trigger. I don’t think banning the gun is going to do anything. There will always be a black market. If somebody wants something bad enough they’re going to get it. So, if somebody wants a gun to kill people in mass shootings it’s going to happen. It’s sad that it does happen but the mass shooter usually has some type of mental disorder or something is wrong with them. So, all in all I see why people would want to ban them because they think it is the guns fault that people die, but in reality it is the people not the guns.

    [read less]

    I don’t personally think assault rifles should be banned. People act like guns are the thing killing people. Well somebody has to pull the trigger. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Deven from Louisiana

    There is not a definition of a semi-automatic weapon really is. The fact is a semi-automatic weapon as a rifle is no different from a semi-auto pistol. They are simply different in size. Also the purpose of the second amendment is to protect from an overpowering government. If the military has these war machines, the people should be able to have them to or the people wouldn’t be able to do anything if the military starts to push down on them.

    [read less]

    There is not a definition of a semi-automatic weapon really is. The fact is a semi-automatic weapon as a rifle is no different from a semi-auto pistol…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ian from Michigan

    The second amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves against invading countries and tyrannical power, even from our own government. Some people don’t understand that the only people being banned from obtaining firearms are the average joe, AKA the “good guys”. Criminals do not follow laws and will barely be affected. In the real world there are smugglers, and some form of black market. Besides, its not the method criminals use to terrorize america; its the criminals themselves. These people were brought up in a bad place, and LEARNED somewhere, intentionally or not, that this is okay. People would also not be afraid if they knew gun safety.

    [read less]

    The second amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves against invading countries and tyrannical power, even from our own …

    [read more]
    0
  • Claire from South Carolina

    Many should have permits but under the amendments, we have the right to bear arms. So taking such a privilege in the USA could cause unstable problems in the government and for the people.

    [read less]

    Many should have permits but under the amendments, we have the right to bear arms. So taking such a privilege in the USA could cause unstable problems…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jaylen from Ohio

    Banning semi-automatic rifles will not help with gun violence. However, banning semi- automatic rifles might increase violence because the US citizens are being restricted on their second amendment. This can make people of America mad and they can protest against ban on semi- automatic rifles.

    [read less]

    Banning semi-automatic rifles will not help with gun violence. However, banning semi- automatic rifles might increase violence because the US citizens…

    [read more]
    0
  • Abigail from Alabama

    I think that semi-automatic rifles should not be banned. I know that a lot of activists are against semi-automatic guns because of the multiple deaths but it’s not the gun that is killing the people it is the person purchasing or recieving the gun. So we should do extensive background checks to every person purchasing a gun to make sure they’re eligible. Then we should create strickter gun laws as well to stop the people reviving semi-automatic guns illegally.

    [read less]

    I think that semi-automatic rifles should not be banned. I know that a lot of activists are against semi-automatic guns because of the multiple deaths…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jax from Texas

    You can take away guns but you can be damn sure criminals and gangs aint giving up their guns at the end if the day all your doing is increasing the risk of american people to die because they cant defend themselves

    [read less]

    You can take away guns but you can be damn sure criminals and gangs aint giving up their guns at the end if the day all your doing is increasing the r…

    [read more]
    0
  • Megan from Indiana

    Guns in general should not be banned. Yes shootings and even accidental shootings are terrible but guns are not the problem here. The problem is the people operating said weapons. Many people die from car accidents a year but cars are not banned.

    [read less]

    Guns in general should not be banned. Yes shootings and even accidental shootings are terrible but guns are not the problem here. The problem is the p…

    [read more]
    0
  • Justin from Washington

    When talking about the 2nd Amendment, it is important to note that they outline rights that all American citizens have that cannot be infringed upon by the government. In my point of view, no matter how troublesome these Amendments are, it is in the interest of a moral society to not infringe upon them and do its best through legal means to address the issues at hand. For example, in court cases where everyone knows the criminal committed the crime, the criminal still has to go through court and concrete evidence still has to be used to prove his guilt. Same for the 2nd Amendment, even if American ownership of guns was the root of all gun violence, then if we are a moral society, we should be trying to solve it without infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

    [read less]

    When talking about the 2nd Amendment, it is important to note that they outline rights that all American citizens have that cannot be infringed upon b…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tyler from Illinois

    I believe that the weapon itself is not the problem at all; the real problem is the type of attachments we allow to be sold for these weapons. For example, bump stocks allow the user to shoot much faster than normal. Another reason they should not be banned is our right to bear arms. Although most people stop there, our second amendment right is to protect ourselves and our country stating “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.” Therefore, we have a right to own and learn how to use a modern weapon for the defense of our liberty and freedom in the event of a foreign invasion or a government/military takeover.

    [read less]

    I believe that the weapon itself is not the problem at all; the real problem is the type of attachments we allow to be sold for these weapons. For exa…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cole from Illinois

    If you ban semi-automatic weapons, you’re banning the 2nd amendment because every other weapon on the market in the U.S.. Plus if you ban weapons that will just make it that much easier for people to make guns illegally and buy them on the black market. So in result banning semi-automatic weapons is unconstitutional.

    [read less]

    If you ban semi-automatic weapons, you’re banning the 2nd amendment because every other weapon on the market in the U.S.. Plus if you ban weapons that…

    [read more]
    0
  • Chase from Illinois

    Big government equals bigger problems

    0
  • sam from New Hampshire

    GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

    0
  • Elias from New Hampshire

    Semi-automatic guns should not be banned. Guns cant kill people by themselves, in order for them to function they need a human with a mission, without a human they are useless.

    0
  • Nick from New Hampshire

    OK if we were voting for Automatic guns to be ban than yes, Banning Automatic guns are what we should be voting on. Let’s say you live in a populated area that has a semi-auto gun. That would be a little shady because what would you use it for? If you live in a city and want to shoot a semi-automatic you can rent those type of guns, some shooting ranges even let you rent guns. However, if you live in the country it would be more practical if you owned a semi-automatic because you could hunt with it. you can’t really hunt in the city. Just remember guns don’t kill people.

    [read less]

    OK if we were voting for Automatic guns to be ban than yes, Banning Automatic guns are what we should be voting on. Let’s say you live in a populated …

    [read more]
    0
  • Zallard from New Hampshire

    out of the 34000 people that die due to funs every year approximately 20000 of those deaths are due to suicide. which leaves 14000 deaths due to other causes. around half of these deaths are accidental. while handguns kill around 7000 people per year shoguns kill around 200 people per year which leaves semi-auto rifles witch kill around 150 people per year.

    [read less]

    out of the 34000 people that die due to funs every year approximately 20000 of those deaths are due to suicide. which leaves 14000 deaths due to other…

    [read more]
    0
  • Caden from New Hampshire

    People saying that guns should be banned because we have police officers are basically like saying we dont need fire extinguishers cause we have firefighters. If we can just find the car model that is in the most accident we could just ban it, I mean thats how its supposed to work with guns right?

    [read less]

    People saying that guns should be banned because we have police officers are basically like saying we dont need fire extinguishers cause we have firef…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jimmy from New Hampshire

    It’s our right to own weapons

    0
  • Grungle from New Hampshire

    While guns are the cause of a lot of suffering right now, the point of the matter is that people have always found ways to kill others. Look at the Unibomber. He never fired a gun at any of his victims, but instead killed them with bombs sent in the mail. If anything, the ban of automatic weapons may result in some people being unable to defend themselves from killers.

    [read less]

    While guns are the cause of a lot of suffering right now, the point of the matter is that people have always found ways to kill others. Look at the Un…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nolan from Massachusetts

    When the majority of gun deaths in America are handgun related and we have something called the constitution and the 2nd amendment to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic, we will never give up our rights and freedoms. The Assualt weapon ban in the 90s to early 2000s (2004) can be seen as virtually having no effect on gun violence. At the time of the ban, gun violence and all violence was on a declining trend and the trend continued during and after the ban as well. In regards to mass shootings, the government simply needs to stronger enforce the gun laws already in place and potentionally make the background check more vigorous and thorough nationally. Additionally, as I personally would not recommend arming teachers with guns, I would suggest schools practicing active shooter drills more frequently (maybe having a lever similar to a fire alarm that could be pulled as well), increasing the daytime school security, and teaching their students that joking about “school shooters” is not acceptable and any and all related behavior (any potential “signs” a student could express) could be and should be taken as a potential threat.
    -Nolan Buck

    [read less]

    When the majority of gun deaths in America are handgun related and we have something called the constitution and the 2nd amendment to protect against …

    [read more]
    0
  • Diego from Nevada

    It is our 2nd Amendment rights as US citizens to own and bear arms. Yes we can try to limit guns and such but that will fuel the urge for more guns to traffic around the US illegally. It’s better to focus on humans and mental illnesses to avoid another tragedy, because behind the gun is a human. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

    [read less]

    It is our 2nd Amendment rights as US citizens to own and bear arms. Yes we can try to limit guns and such but that will fuel the urge for more guns to…

    [read more]
    0
  • Brett from Kentucky

    People are very sensitive right now due to the many shooting that have taken place, which is very understandable. At the same time they must realize that doing something as drastic as this could be a very big risk to the safety of the people. Many people need to realize that we need protection and these weapons are the best way to be protected. Without these weapons we lose the ability to protect ourselves. Not only this but many people use them for recreational use such as hunting. When not used incorrectly they are not bad.

    [read less]

    People are very sensitive right now due to the many shooting that have taken place, which is very understandable. At the same time they must realize t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jonathon from Oklahoma

    Im 17 and love to shoot guns. Guns dont kill people. People kill people. Honestly this whole debate is being used to cause the peopel to split and not notice the agedas of both Dems. and Reps.

    [read less]

    Im 17 and love to shoot guns. Guns dont kill people. People kill people. Honestly this whole debate is being used to cause the peopel to split and not…

    [read more]
    0
  • John from Washington

    Shall not be infringed.
    Repeal NFA and Hughes Amendment.

    0
  • josh from Kentucky

    No, the people of the United States have the rights given to us by the 2nd amendment. I do agree that we should look more in depth on who we give weapons to but should not ban these weapons from being in the hands are right minded, true Americans. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

    [read less]

    No, the people of the United States have the rights given to us by the 2nd amendment. I do agree that we should look more in depth on who we give weap…

    [read more]
    0
    • Jack from New Hampshire

      Hats off to Josh for reminding us that this is a right that cannot be repealed.

      0
  • Noé from Georgia

    We should actually be allowed to have automatic weapons, because the 2A was created to defend the Bill of Rights from the government. If the government tries anything, the people will be armed.

    [read less]

    We should actually be allowed to have automatic weapons, because the 2A was created to defend the Bill of Rights from the government. If the governmen…

    [read more]
    0
  • Zachary from Georgia

    Only a fraction of all gun-related deaths come from semi-automatic rifles. Whilst the majority of them come from handguns. The Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms released a statistic showing where guns used in crime came from. The top ways were through theft from houses, straw purchasing, and pawn shops. Only a very small percentage of these were semi-automatic rifles though. Whether the founding fathers did or did not intend for us to have them is irrelevant. The fact remains that semi-automatic rifles contribute to little-to-none of the majority of crime in the United States. Banning semi-automatic rifles was attempted in the Clinton era and it did nothing. So it’s safe to say that it would prove useless.

    [read less]

    Only a fraction of all gun-related deaths come from semi-automatic rifles. Whilst the majority of them come from handguns. The Bureau of Tobacco and F…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacob from Oregon

    The banning of semi-automatic weapons is in complete defiance of our second
    amendment rights. Besides the banning of semi-automatic weapons will not
    solve the problem of gun violence. While it may reduce smaller acts of gun
    violence if someone really wants to get a semi-automatic weapon they will. This
    in effect will only take semi-automatic weapons from law abiding citizens, so
    why are we punishing the people who are being responsible with semi-automatic
    weapons. Besides events such as school shootings typically occur due to a kid
    snapping due to heavy amounts of bullying. The current fight for more gun restrictions
    is just a distraction from the true problem, how poorly people treat each
    other. If we could only be decent human beans we would not and should not need
    to discuss this issue in the first place.

    [read less]

    The banning of semi-automatic weapons is in complete defiance of our second
    amendment rights. Besides the banning of semi-automatic weapons will not

    [read more]
    0
  • David from North Carolina

    Banning guns doesn’t prevent criminals from getting them illegally, like these school shooters.

    0
  • Isaac from Oregon

    The United States of America broke away from England in the 1700s because of how powerful their government was. Our founding fathers put together the Bill of Rights in 1789 to give our citizens the right to succeed in a democracy and to defend themselves from tyranny. The Bill of Rights was also formed to keep our government in check. If semi automatic weapons are banned and forced out of the hands of citizens, our government will be a whole lot stronger. A very strong government tends to lead to corruption. Besides, if our government takes away one of our rights, what will stop them from taking the rest? It is a simple concept. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not decrease the rate of crime. It has actually done the opposite.

    According to FBI Crime statistics, in 2015 there were 13,455 people killed with the use of a firearm. Semi automatic rifles were used in 252 of them. Less than 2%. Semi automatic rifles are not the issue. There a lot more concerning issues. For instance, according to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448478/ obesity causes about 300,000 deaths per year in the United State. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about sporting or self defense. It talks about the arming of the militia or the citizens as a mean to stand up to a tyrannical government and should never be infringed upon. To conclude, criminals will find every way possible to acquire a weapon if they chose. Punishing law abiding citizens and overstepping our 2nd Amendment right is not the answer. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.

    [read less]

    The United States of America broke away from England in the 1700s because of how powerful their government was. Our founding fathers put together the …

    [read more]
    0
  • Spencer from Connecticut

    Semi automatic firearms fire once per pull of the trigger. Now just about every firearm in the country are semi auto, all 350million of them, and those are the legal ones. This ban is almost exasclty the same as completely taking away the second amendment all together. All handguns in the last century would be banned, except revolvers which in practice shoot semi auto, however since the ammunition is loaded from a rotating cylinder, it is not classified as semi auto. In effect this ban would effect legal law abiding gun owners. Criminals will still have guns and will then be able to easily outgun any American citizen. Illegal drugs like heroin, crack, cocaine, and on a federal level, weed, has been illegal for decades yet still can be easily bought, and not only that. But it can be found in high school all the way to elementary schools, it can still be easily found in federal prisons. And keep in mind we’ve had the so called “war on drugs”, the government is meant to be kept in check and it works only in the people of this nations favour to be an armed population. Regardless so few people are killed with legal semi automatic rifles it would not be anywhere near enough to constitute a ban, it’s only becuase these few public shooting each year that get the non gun educated people in a frenzy of banning and restricting. When Bill Clinton had his horrible “assault weapons ban” it did nothing to decrease gun violence, gun violence was already on the decline since the late 80s and actually went up slightly during this ten year ban, and is still going down. Look at places like London where guns are slim to none, even for police. They have stabbings through the roof, acid attacks, and terror attacks like in France. This is what happens to an unarmed defenceless population. I will end with this, you are either for firearms or want to ban and confiscate them all, five and inch and loose a mile is ehat us happening here and it’s with our god given right of self protection and self preservation written in our constitution that is at stake. A bullet is just as deadly from a modern rifle as it is from a rifle made 100 years ago.

    [read less]

    Semi automatic firearms fire once per pull of the trigger. Now just about every firearm in the country are semi auto, all 350million of them, and thos…

    [read more]
    0
  • Luke from Missouri

    Britain tried this. And now knife crime is spreading like wildfire.

    0
  • Thomas from Pennsylvania

    The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees our right to bear arms and we have enjoyed that Constitutional right for roughly 230 years now. Semi-automatic rifles should not be banned, and neither automatic rifles for that matter. A relatively small proportion of gun-related deaths are at the hands of semi and fully automatic rifles. Most deaths are caused by handguns, as criminals cannot just walk into banks or into houses holding large tactical-looking rifles. It should also be noted that mass shootings like we see today were unheard of 30 years ago. 30 years ago, we had gun rights like we did not see the violence back then that we do now. I believe that guns are not the problem. Therefore, other measures should be taken to stop shootings instead of stripping citizens of their Constitutional rights. Why should a responsible gun owner who owns their weapons legally be punished for the actions of someone who shoots up a public place with weapons often owned illegally? Another thing to note is that with government power, enough is never enough; the government will always seek to increase its authority and influence over everyone. Look at the role of the U.S. government today compared to what it did 100 years ago. Banning semi-automatic weapons would only be the first step, after which they would them target other firearms such as handguns, bolt-action rifles, or shotguns. The end goal of this mentality is the complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The saying “give them an inch they take a mile” really applies with gun control. Gun rights need to be staunchly defended. One of the first things that a dictator would try to do is disarm the population, so they can rule with less opposition. Even with restrictive gun control, it would do little (that is, if anything at all) to reduce gun violence because most guns used in crimes and murder are owned illegally by the perpetrators. It was pointed out to me once that there has never been a mass shooting at a gun show or any area were the population is heavily armed. Most mass shootings take place in areas were people are not armed or not allowed to be armed, especially schools. Banning any type of weapon of any type would only decrease the number of law-abiding citizens having that weapon without having much of an impact on criminals who have that weapon, as they do not care about gun laws and own most of their firearms illegally anyway. Liberals go as far to argue that the 2nd Amendment never did mean for people to own guns by saying it only applied to militias. However the exact words to the 2nd Amendment read:

    “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.”

    The Amendment clearly states that keeping and bearing Arms is the “right of the people” and that it “shall not be infringed.”

    [read less]

    The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees our right to bear arms and we have enjoyed that Constitutional right for roughly 230 ye…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joshua from Wisconsin

    No, because banning semi-automatic rifles would deprive American citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Let me explain.

    On October 1, 2017, the citizens of Catalonia, a small region in Spain, voted in polling stations to declare their desire for independence from Spain. But then, the polling stations were attacked by heavily armed agents of the Spanish government. Stormtroopers fired rubber bullets and unleashed tear gas on unarmed civilians, and destroyed enough ballots to throw the results into serious doubt. Because the right to bear arms is not respected in Spain, the Catalonians were unable to exercise their right to self-determination. Compare the Catalonian independence movement with the American colonists in 1776. The only difference between the two is that the American colonists had guns to defend themselves from the British. If they hadn’t, the American Revolution would not have succeeded, and America as we know it would not exist today.
    The Second Amendment states: “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.” The Second Amendment has undergone much criticism, with even a retired Supreme Court Justice recently calling for it to be repealed. But before we condemn any part of the Constitution, we have to ask ourselves the question: Why was it put there? What is its purpose? The main reason why the Founding Fathers instituted the Second Amendment was to provide security against tyranny. Security against tyranny. Simply put, the 2nd Amendment offers a check against an out-of-control government.
    There are two main objections brought up against this justification. The first main objection is that America’s government would never become tyrannical, so the 2nd Amendment is unnecessary. However, this objection does not take into account historical reality. According to the late political scientist R.J. Rummel, in the 20th century alone, 262 million unarmed civilians were murdered by their government. 262 million. In the 20th century alone. Government is the single largest cause of death by unnatural means. Unfortunately, tyrannical governments have been the norm rather than the exception. Not only that, history is replete with examples of unarmed citizens’ rights being trampled on. For example, take Germany in the 1930s, when the Nazis assumed control of Germany. One of the first things they did upon assuming power, was disarm the German citizens. Adolf Hitler signed the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, which required police permission to own a handgun. All guns were registered. The Jews’ weapons were confiscated just days before German stormtroopers attacked synagogues and Jews throughout Germany. No dictator has ever established rule without first disarming the people. Castro, Gaddafi, and Stalin disarmed the people in Cuba, Libya, and the Soviet Union. Clearly, there is a need for security against potential tyranny.

    The second main objection is that, in the 21st century governments have nuclear weapons, tanks, and fighter jets; as such, the 2nd amendment is obsolete because there is no way citizens will be able to repel the government with just guns. This is true. However, it is also true that governments are extremely unlikely to nuke their own citizens. They more likely to use more moderate forms of persecution. Thus, if citizens are armed, they are better able to respond to abuses. It is true that an armed citizenry is not guaranteed to succeed in overthrowing the government. However, an armed citizenry guarantees the citizens the ability to resist. You know, in the Constitution, we have numerous checks and balances on the government to prevent it from becoming tyrannical – all of which is wonderful. But what happens if the government ignores the Constitution? What happens if the government systematically infringes on the peoples’ rights? What is the enforcement mechanism for the Constitution? The Founding Fathers, who had just fought a revolution to secure their independence, knew that the citizens must have the ability to resist, revolt. And the 2nd Amendment is a guarantee of that ability; think of it as an enforcement mechanism for liberty.

    John Basil Barnhill, a 20th century journalist, wrote: “When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” We only have to look at Catalonia to be grateful for the Second Amendment giving us security against tyranny. Banning semi-automatic rifles would be a dangerous abrogation of the Second Amendment’s legitimate purpose.

    [read less]

    No, because banning semi-automatic rifles would deprive American citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Let me explain.

    On October …

    [read more]
    0
  • Mark from California

    This is BS. banning semi automatics will nearly be impossible and you will be disarming law abiding citizens, not criminals. you dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. we also need to protect ourselves from foreign invasions and the tyranical government (2A). they have full auto weapons. we should be able to have at least a semi auto.

    [read less]

    This is BS. banning semi automatics will nearly be impossible and you will be disarming law abiding citizens, not criminals. you dont need to be a roc…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dylan from New York

    No semiautomatic weapons should not be banned. Owning semiautomatic weapons is your 2nd amendment right. The 2nd amendment states that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers wanted American citizens to be armed for self-defense. Proponents of gun control ask why you need semiautomatic weapons and ignore the fact that they can be used for self-defense. If someone breaks into you home with a semi-automatic gun you need to be equally armed if not more armed. People also use semiautomatic guns for sport or as a hobby. There are between 20-30 million semiautomatic guns in the United States. You cannot prevent millions of law abiding citizens from purchasing these weapons. We do not ban trucks when there is an attack where a terrorist runs over people with a truck. When someone is stabbed we don’t ban knives. If semiautomatic weapons are illegal to purchase, criminals will purchase them illegally instead or find new ways to slaughter people. The first major attack on a school and the deadliest was in Bath, Michigan in 1927. The school was rigged with explosives killing 44 students. Criminals don’t follow laws. If someone would commit murder they would have no issue violating gun laws. It is illegal to posses drugs yet millions of people are addicted to illicit drugs. It is illegal to cross the border into America yet the United States has 11 million illegal immigrants. Laws are broken frequently despite the government’s best efforts. There are so many weapons in the United States it would be next to impossible to prevent a criminal from getting their hands on one. Less than 3% of gun homicides are committed with a semiautomatic gun and only 4% of gun homicides are mass shootings. The American people do not want an assault weapons ban. After the assault weapons ban in 1994 the Democrats that passed the bill into law lost 54 seats in the House and 9 seats in the Senate. Almost half of semiautomatic gun owners were in the military or are members of law enforcement. The average semiautomatic gun owner is 35 years old and married, which is not the profile of a mass shooter. When the assault weapon ban expired in 2004 the National Institute of Justice found that the “assault weapons” ban could not be credited for any drop in gun violence. In 2011 only .012% of deaths were from semiautomatic guns. In 2000, during the assault weapons ban, gun rifle deaths were 14.4% higher than in 2009, which is 5 years after the ban expired. The Columbine School shooting took place in 1999 during the assault weapons ban. The Virginia Tech massacre was committed with a handgun. Furthermore since from 1993-2013 the gun homicide rate decreased 49% as private gun ownership increased 56%. During this same period violent crime fell 77%. Forcible rape fell 63% from 1993-2015. Therefore, gun control does not reduce crime but armed citizens do reduce crime.

    https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem
    http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/
    http://goal.org/newspages/AWB-truth.html
    https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/19/flashback-national-institute-justice-federal-assault-weapon-ban-not-reduce-crime/amp/

    [read less]

    No semiautomatic weapons should not be banned. Owning semiautomatic weapons is your 2nd amendment right. The 2nd amendment states that “…the right …

    [read more]
    0
  • Samuel from Minnesota

    There are many rifles that are semi automatics. I learned to shoot on a .22 semi auto which is a very small caliber. Many people on my trap shooting team shoot semi-auto shot guns. Semi-auto is a broad term for a large amount of guns in this world. With this in mind, I do not believe they should be banned.

    [read less]

    There are many rifles that are semi automatics. I learned to shoot on a .22 semi auto which is a very small caliber. Many people on my trap shooting t…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ethan from Florida

    Although gun control is extremely important and is necessary in a functioning gun-inclusive society, the absolute ban of semi-automatic rifles outright is taking a solution to an extreme. The Second Amendment requires that the citizens’ bearing of arms is to be legal and never taken away, and to ban guns constitutionally we would have to repeal an amendment, which is unnecessary as there are other considerable options that could work to better effect. Many people suggest stricter gun laws, a decrease in gun manufacturing, a removal of certain bullets that cause significantly more harm than others, or the removal of guns that fire bullets at a faster, deadlier velocity.

    [read less]

    Although gun control is extremely important and is necessary in a functioning gun-inclusive society, the absolute ban of semi-automatic rifles outrigh…

    [read more]
    0
  • Elizabeth from Utah

    the rifles are a way to defend ourselves and they are a weapon and they are a tool and the fault of the deaths of many civilians is not the gun it is the fault of the person holding the gun

    [read less]

    the rifles are a way to defend ourselves and they are a weapon and they are a tool and the fault of the deaths of many civilians is not the gun it is …

    [read more]
    0
  • kortni from Utah

    i think that we should have guns because when we hunt we need gun and if we don’t have guns we can’t shoot and then deer and etc will over populate

    0
  • Felicitee from Utah

    I believe that we need guns to defend ourselves and others. Also we need guns to kill animals to keep the population down.

    0
  • Richard from Utah

    I believe that the real problem is not guns. It is that a vast population of young adolescents are not being taught morals and appropriate social skills as they are growing up. They have grown up de-sensitized to violence. As a result, they do not know how to cope with the stress and feelings of anger that happen as a result of their stress.

    [read less]

    I believe that the real problem is not guns. It is that a vast population of young adolescents are not being taught morals and appropriate social skil…

    [read more]
    0
  • braxton from Utah

    i think that they sued be used to protect yourself i love them

    0
  • Hesston from Utah

    No Because people are just stupid because we need guns if we want them and the people that don’t want them should just go sit in there house like the guy on bench warmers.

    0
  • Jake from Utah

    We need guns! it’s our protection! Ban certain people of the guns, not the guns, to the people!

    0
  • Joseph from Utah

    guns are ok its just the person that uses them

    0
  • Leah from Utah

    Guns are helped for hunting for over population and guns are for protection if you ban guns people will still have them and also if people ban guns there is bombs knifes.

    0
  • Donald from Arizona

    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide a check on government tyranny, and for that military-grade rifles are required. For an example of what can happen if military-grade rifle and other arms are banned, there have been nine major genocides in the world in the last 100+ years in which between 74 and 90 million innocents people were murdered. These include Ottoman-Turkey in 1915-1917, The Soviet Union from 1929 to 1945, Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe, 1933-1945, Nationalist China 1927-1949, Red China in three separate purges, 1949-1952, 1957-1960, and 1966-1976, Guatemala 1960-1981, Uganda 1971-1979, Cambodia 1975-1979, and Rwanda in 1994. Every one of these genocides, in which people were not only murdered but often tortured and then murdered, was preceded by exactly the kind of bans on military-grade firearms being demanded by the March for Our Lives Marchers. It will not happen here because armed citizens will not allow it. Unarmed citizens will have nothing to say about it.

    [read less]

    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide a check on government tyranny, and for that military-grade rifles are required. For an example of what…

    [read more]
    0
  • Luka from Oregon

    The only difference between a basic and a semi-automatic rifle is the semi auto loads a round in the chamber for you. Skilled gun users and marksmen can achieve similar speeds with your basic non semi rifle by fast-loading.

    [read less]

    The only difference between a basic and a semi-automatic rifle is the semi auto loads a round in the chamber for you. Skilled gun users and marksmen c…

    [read more]
    0
  • Aiden from District Of Columbia

    The point of the second amendment is to guard against a tyrannical government. Some may argue that semi automatic guns weren’t around at the time this amendment was written so it shouldn’t protect them. But in the case of an overwhelming, tyrannical government if the people were to use the muskets and other weapons available at the time it was written, then they would be overpowered easily. I believe the second amendment adapts to the time frame to truly protect the people.

    [read less]

    The point of the second amendment is to guard against a tyrannical government. Some may argue that semi automatic guns weren’t around at the time th…

    [read more]
    0
  • ashton from Pennsylvania

    Most defense as to why it should be outlawed is based on loose facts surrounding killings and shootings. Any gun can do this so why is this one type being targeted? This gun scares people because of the power behind it, but is it actually the gun that is killing people or is it people? If someone is willing to kill with a semi automatic then they are willing to kill with a handgun or knife. outlawing this will do nothing but infringe on the second amendment, which states “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.” We need to ask ourselves if getting rid of this gun will make us safer or make us more at risk. Many Americans homes are armed with guns, including semi automatic, many robbers may carry handguns or shotgun. If you were at home with your family would you rather go toe to toe with someone when you have a handgun or a semi auto? Another point is the U.S. army uses this to protect our home so would this banishment interfere with this nations security? The biggest question is why are we banning a gun when it is a person who is doing the killing?

    [read less]

    Most defense as to why it should be outlawed is based on loose facts surrounding killings and shootings. Any gun can do this so why is this one type b…

    [read more]
    0
  • James from Colorado

    In the history of gun control there are 200 million victims who would tell you why firearms shouldn’t be banned by governments. Secondly the 2nd Amendment is protecting a Right of self defense, the gun is merely a tool that is used. It doesn’t matter what kind of law you would pass, the criminal element will always find a way to accomplish their nefarious purpose. They don’t obey the law, why else do you think they call them criminals? Be sure to go to the Website Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership and look at the genocide chart – it shows the effects of gun control. These are historical facts people, not some made up stuff like the left wants us to believe. Remember – “Freedom once lost, is lost forever.” – John Adams.

    [read less]

    In the history of gun control there are 200 million victims who would tell you why firearms shouldn’t be banned by governments. Secondly the 2nd Amen…

    [read more]
    0
  • William from Alaska

    The second amendment clearly states, “shall not be infringed”. This means that any gun control bill is technically unconstitutional. As an example, the Supreme Court has ruled that government can not ban handguns. I highly doubt that this leaning right Court would uphold a ban on semi-autos.

    [read less]

    The second amendment clearly states, “shall not be infringed”. This means that any gun control bill is technically unconstitutional. As an example…

    [read more]
    0
  • Blade from Georgia

    Absolutely not! If the intention is to save lives and prevent mass shootings, banning semi-automatic rifles would be putting a band-aid on an amputated limb. This problem of mass shootings is beyond labyrinthine in complexity, and there simply are not any easy answers nor solutions. No amount of gun control in the world can stop mass shootings. We can either live in a free society, or a gun free society.

    [read less]

    Absolutely not! If the intention is to save lives and prevent mass shootings, banning semi-automatic rifles would be putting a band-aid on an amputate…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jeremy from Pennsylvania

    As scary as it sounds to haven such powerful guns in a regular citizens hands, it is fully protected under the second amendment. Everyone qualified person has the right to bear arms to defend themselves from whatever’s threatens them or their loved ones. If anything, anyone with a semi-automatic rifle is better protected against other illegal shooters and could help defend there neighbors as well. Such a powerful weapon could even scare would be invaders from even opposing the owners. Banning these guns will only leave these people more vulnerable to attack, it is not the gun that kills people, it is the trigger hand that chooses who lives or dies.

    [read less]

    As scary as it sounds to haven such powerful guns in a regular citizens hands, it is fully protected under the second amendment. Everyone qualified pe…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jackson from Arkansas

    If the First United States Congress didn’t want the people to have the right to bear arms, then this right wouldn’t be the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Today, people still utilize guns for hunting, self defense, and recreational shooting. Unless Congress acts, semi-automatic weapons cannot be banned.

    [read less]

    If the First United States Congress didn’t want the people to have the right to bear arms, then this right wouldn’t be the Second Amendment to the Con…

    [read more]
    0
  • Evan from Wisconsin

    The second amendment does not say anything about the kind of arms that cannot be infringed upon. However, looking over past history says that the people have owned military grade firearms. In fact, the people consist of the militia. Though not used anymore, the reason for it still remains: defense for country, state, township, etc. The military and police are more effective today than they were previously. Now this is going to sound crazy, but if the US government would turn against us and become a dictatorship, we wouldn’t have any guns to fight this dictatorship. Before we make the decision to ban guns, we have to look at the whole picture and not just the fact that a gun can cause death.

    [read less]

    The second amendment does not say anything about the kind of arms that cannot be infringed upon. However, looking over past history says that the peo…

    [read more]
    0
  • Victoria from New York

    Restricting what firearms legal gun owners can have accomplishes nothing. Obviously, criminals do not care what laws and regulations are. Perhaps it is time to actually start addressing crime. Criminals should get the maximum punishment for whatever crime they commit–extending all the way to the death penalty for murderers. That would serve as an actual deterrent to possible future criminals! Additionally, guns cannot kill; only people can. But in killing, more often knives, hammers, or even hands or feet are used than guns are. I don’t see the government looking to ban hammers and hands!

    [read less]

    Restricting what firearms legal gun owners can have accomplishes nothing. Obviously, criminals do not care what laws and regulations are. Perhaps it…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacob from Virginia

    People don’t understand that banning guns doesn’t stop anyone from acquiring a gun. 14 year old Michael Carneal, on December 1st, 1997, used a stolen semi-automatic sidearm to kill three and injure seven of his classmates at Heath High School in Ohio. Please note that; A. He is too young to purchase a firearm and B. He stole the sidearm and ammunition he used in the shooting. No gun laws could have (or did) stopped him from what he did. There are drug laws in place making marijuana illegal, yet two of my classmates were recently suspended for possession and distribution of marijuana. The people who do these thing DON’T CARE ABOUT THE LAW. Also, a fun fact for anti-NRA people, none of the school shooters in recent US history have been NRA members or associated with the NRA in anyway. Just thought you could use some facts in your life.

    [read less]

    People don’t understand that banning guns doesn’t stop anyone from acquiring a gun. 14 year old Michael Carneal, on December 1st, 1997, used a st…

    [read more]
    0
  • Megan from North Dakota

    So the Parkland survivors are marching around talking about how guns are bad and how they should be banned. But did anyone else notice who was protecting them? That’s right. Armed policemen. Armed with guns. You can’t say guns are bad when GUNS are the things protecting you. Next, the second amendment says we have a right to bear arms. Now when our founding fathers wrote this amendment, they specifically put it in so the citizens could protect themselves from anything and anyone. Including their own country. Now the has to repel the second amendment in order to pass any other kind of legislation against gun violence. In doing so, they are throwing away exactly what the founding fathers put in place, an insurance policy for the citizens that they will always have freedom. Who’s to say that next they won’t ask for something else? And how are we going to fight back? We won’t be able to, because they took away our right to. In two thousand years, who’s to say that the country won’t have a tyrant as President? Then what? Repealing the second amendment and banning guns is the first step to letting go freedom. I want to point out one more fact here: every shooting has taken place in a gun free zone. I know that this topic was about semi autos, but what next? If someone can’t get a semi auto, you can sure bet that they won’t give it a second thought before buying a rifle or shotgun or handgun. Are you going to ban all of them too?

    [read less]

    So the Parkland survivors are marching around talking about how guns are bad and how they should be banned. But did anyone else notice who was protect…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nicholas from Ohio

    With a degree of introspection, we must recognize knee-jerk reactions to certain tragedies before seriously advocating for any policy. We must consider the implications of any policy we advocate for, both positive and negative, if we wish to be intellectually honest. I do not believe in simply banning such weapons labeled “assault weapons” for a few reasons: 1) The is no legitimate classification of “assault weapon.” That is not to say that there is no such thing, but used as a blanket term, it is almost a meaningless term. 2) Such a policy, to the best of my knowledge, cannot be implemented in such a way as to maximize wellbeing as a result. Banning assault weapons is all the same unless we can rid the streets of them, and I do not, as it stands, see anyway that is feasible. 3) Perhaps it may be argued that such a ban is an infringement on the rights of people who enjoy the ownership of such “assault weapons.” Unless our legislation is slated to do a definite good, we ought not take from our citizens.

    [read less]

    With a degree of introspection, we must recognize knee-jerk reactions to certain tragedies before seriously advocating for any policy. We must conside…

    [read more]
    0
  • Martin from New York

    Ignoring the factor of D.C. v Heller and the Second Amendment, banning semi-automatic weapons is completely impractical to ending gun-related deaths, especially mass shootings. Nine out of ten gun-deaths in America are attributable to handguns, and two-thirds of gun deaths are even the result of a crime, but of suicides. If you want to end gun deaths, maybe gun control can be an answer, but banning particular types of guns, or god forbid ALL guns, is not a good idea.

    [read less]

    Ignoring the factor of D.C. v Heller and the Second Amendment, banning semi-automatic weapons is completely impractical to ending gun-related deaths, …

    [read more]
    0
  • Grace from New York

    We were promised in the second amendment the right to bare arms. See it isn’t the guns fault it is the person you picks up the gun. Like when you get in the car if for some reason you hit someone with your car you don’t blame and car you blame the person driving. The same thing should go for a gun. See a person can hurt anyone with anything. Even plastic silverware can be used as a weapon. Taking away people’s rights. That includes gun rights. Is taking away there freedom. That’s how dictatorships get in to power when you take away people’s rights to protect themselves

    [read less]

    We were promised in the second amendment the right to bare arms. See it isn’t the guns fault it is the person you picks up the gun. Like when you get …

    [read more]
    0
  • Tristan from Ohio

    Semi-automatic rifles should not be banned– if they were it would be an encroachment of our second amendment rights. With that being said, I have absolutely no problem with raising the legal age to purchase one nationwide to 21, as well as enforcing waiting periods and stronger background checks. The fact of the matter is, just because we “ban” something, it does not mean that citizens will abide by it (look at what happened with the prohibition with alcohol). People who genuinely want to commit a violent act will find a way to obtain the weapon regardless of their means of doing so. The major crisis threatening our country is the rise in mental illness and the lack of treatment thereof. This issue could be addressed by increasing the number of treatment facilities and making them more accessible, better resources in school (classes and counselors), and ridding society’s stigmas of the negative associations with mental illness and that seeking treatment is a sign of “weakness”.

    [read less]

    Semi-automatic rifles should not be banned– if they were it would be an encroachment of our second amendment rights. With that being said, I have abs…

    [read more]
    0
  • James from Nevada

    A couple of days ago a lady asked me the following question: “Why would an ordinary citizen ever need an ‘assault weapon?’” My answer (and the only logical one to reply with) was, “When someone is using one to attack YOU.” In other words, for defense in opposition to one used against you or your family!
    I also told her that, “ALL weapons are ‘assault weapons’ – some are just more ‘assaulty” than others.” I continued by saying that if you are attacked it isn’t going to be with a single shot pop gun or kid’s slingshot! Wouldn’t you want the odds at least equalized for your own defense and/or that of your family’s?”
    That actually stopped her cold. Uh, hadn’t thought of that. I don’t think it converted her thinking, but it may have started her thinking. Most of the “mass shooters” were armed with either automatic or semi-automatic weapons. They weren’t using slingshots or BB guns!
    So, if you found yourself in the unthinkable situation where one of the nutcase “mass shooters” was coming after you or your family, how would you want to be armed? Or, at least someone nearby if you don’t want to “carry” yourself?
    Feel free to use that argument with anyone giving you the razzmatazz about “gun control” and why should anyone have an “assault weapon,” etc. “It’s for your own defense, stupid!”
    With that in mind, now read the short text below and draw your own conclusion as to true motive.
    Let them get away with this under the hue & cry of the obedient-to-their-masters mainstream media fomenting it and the end of that road is the end of your ability to defend yourself against the predators of the world – the end of the Second Amendment.
    And if the Second goes down, since its purpose was to protect our OTHER rights against predators (both “official” and unofficial), don’t think the others won’t start going down it its wake – and don’t think that isn’t the envisioned “final solution” behind such actions as described below. It can only happen if it’s allowed to happen….

    [read less]

    A couple of days ago a lady asked me the following question: “Why would an ordinary citizen ever need an ‘assault weapon?’” My answer (and the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Dominic from California

    Obviously, the question of “should” semi-automatic rifles be banned is different than “can” semi-automatic rifles be banned. However, since this country does not set rules and norms because of how people feel but rather because of precedents and previous rulings, “can the United States ban all semi-automatic rifles?” is implied here. The answer to this question is an obvious no, Congress (the only body hypothetically able to institute this ban) does not have the power to create such a law. This is backed by the Supreme Court’s rulings, three in fact.
    In District of Columbia v Heller, the court ruled that DC’s ban on all handguns “amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” Any ban Congress could pass on semi-automatic rifles would be a ban on an “entire class of arms,” deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Also in DC v Heller, the court ruled that weapons “in common use at the time” are the types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment. Rifles in general are obviously “in common use,” making up about 40% of guns manufactured in 2016, only superseded by handguns. DC v Heller also set the precedent that even weapons “not in existence at the time of the founding” of the Second Amendment are protected by the Constitution. This precedent was upheld in Caetano v Massachusetts, when a woman argued for her right to own a stun gun, a weapon obviously not around in the 1780’s. While rifles themselves were around at the time of the founding, assault rifles were not, but under Miller’s precedent they are still protected by the Second Amendment. In McDonald v City of Chicago the court ruled that the right the bear arms falls under the Due Process Clause of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. This ruling cleared up the confusion left by DC v Heller’s ruling as to whether the same standards should be applied to state and city laws, as DC is only a district. These three court cases, with the main precedent coming from DC v Heller, all agree that while assault rifles have the capability to do mass harm, they are still protected under the citizen’s right to bear arms. Any legislation to ban all semi-automatic assault rifles passed by Congress would quickly be struck down by the courts, which means that Congress does not possess the power to ban these types of guns.
    The obvious counter to this argument is Bill Clinton’s 1994 Federal Assault Weapon’s Ban, in which certain semi-automatic weapons could no longer be manufactured. The key word here is “certain,” as the Clinton administration only prohibited the manufacturing of weapons deemed “assault-style.” This limited scope of the ban means it cannot be used in this argument, as not all semi-automatic weapons were banned. Besides, in a study analyzing state-level murder rates from 1980-2009, the findings showed that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect these rates, and that states with more restrictions on concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders. These years included the Clinton era ban on assault rifles.
    In addition, rifles are not the main cause of deaths in the US. In 2015, there were 13,455 murder victims. 9,616 of these were caused by some sort of firearm. Of those, only 252 were due to rifles, while 6,447 were due to handguns. Only 2.6% of gun-deaths in 2015 were from any type of rifle. This percentage lowers when only looking at semi-automatic rifles. As for mass shootings, there were 475 deaths from 372 mass shootings in 2015, which means that about 125 of these deaths were not from rifles, if one assumes all deaths from rifles occur during mass shooting, which is a far-fetched conclusion to make. So while semi-automatic rifles may be in the new a lot more than handguns, a ban would not stop the problem we face as a country, which is the easy access to guns by children and mentally unequipped persons.

    [read less]

    Obviously, the question of “should” semi-automatic rifles be banned is different than “can” semi-automatic rifles be banned. However, since this count…

    [read more]
    0
  • Emily from California

    The Second Amendment says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If ever our government started to become oppressive and dominate over its citizens – yes, it could happen even in America – the people need to have the right and power to protect themselves. If we decide it’s constitutional to ban certain types of guns, what will stop us from eventually banning all of them? Banning or limiting the purchase of guns will not stop criminals from getting them illegally – and if that happened, people would have no way to defend themselves.

    [read less]

    The Second Amendment says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If ever our government started to become oppressive…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jacob from Pennsylvania

    I do not think semi automatic rifles should be banned for the simple fact that the American people have the right to own a weapon as long as it follows set requirements. Most semi automatic rifles have a smaller bullet than that of a lever action or bolt action rifle. You can do just as much or even more damage in a mass shooting with a bolt action or lever action seeings how they have more stopping power which would have more deaths instead of just injuries. On that note, my dad has two AR-15’s in one of his many fun cabinets. Having them in my house has made everyone in the neighborhood feel safer because they all know that if the government tried infringement on our rights they are going to have equally armed personnel on their side. People that are against the ownership of said rifles are ignorant toward everything in front of their eyes.

    [read less]

    I do not think semi automatic rifles should be banned for the simple fact that the American people have the right to own a weapon as long as it follow…

    [read more]
    0
  • YIDE from Pennsylvania

    I will discuss this issue with a new aspect that banning guns to stop crimes is creating a myth. Because changing the amendment and put restrictions on guns is that difficult, it creates an illusion that if we do this impossible, every problem will be solved. And since it that difficult, this myth can keep existing while the real causes are being ignored. Why are there massive shootings in this country? It is not because of human nature but social problems. And these problems require the sacrifice of resources, and none wants to do that. Then everyone just finds an impossible excuse and doing nothing. Solving a problem requires a right question first.

    [read less]

    I will discuss this issue with a new aspect that banning guns to stop crimes is creating a myth. Because changing the amendment and put restrictions o…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alexis from New Jersey

    Semi-automatic assault rifles shouldn’t be banned. When a person goes and shoots up a school they aren’t always in the right mind. I believe that the seller of the said gun should check every customer’s mental history before handing over a highly dangerous weapon. At least a sane person has some self-control and can stop the urge to murder. If they have a severe mental history, it takes over their brain and doesn’t give the murderer a right to think it is wrong for themselves. As you can see, the ban on guns wouldn’t be as logical as just seeing the mental health of the customer before selling the gun.

    [read less]

    Semi-automatic assault rifles shouldn’t be banned. When a person goes and shoots up a school they aren’t always in the right mind. I believe that the …

    [read more]
    0
  • Micah from Pennsylvania

    I agree, as with many others, that these assault rifles should not be banned, for they do serve a purpose. You cannot just say ban them all. That is a drastic measure. Yes, we must take some precautions, but if the government is not careful they will be guilty of violating our second amendment right. For if they ban one type of gun, where will they stop?

    [read less]

    I agree, as with many others, that these assault rifles should not be banned, for they do serve a purpose. You cannot just say ban them all. That is a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gabriel from Colorado

    Currently in the U.S law system, there is no legal definitrion for assualt rifles. Yet gun control activists claim assualt rifles are killing hundreds in the street. Last year, there was 32,000 gun deaths. 60% of all gun deaths in the United States are because of Suicide. Of that 32,000 dead, 33% were killed from homicide. However 80% of the homicides were gang and drug related. This statistic was taken from the CDC. Yet pistols and small fire arms were the most responisable for all the gun deaths. Pistols fuciton the same way as a rifle. You pull the trigger once and one bullet comes out. This is the same for rifles as you can pull the trigger once and one bullet comes out. Fully automatic firearms have been illegal in the United States for a very long time and still are today. A fully automatic firearm works by pulling the trigger and holding the trigger causes the gun to continue firing till the magazine is empty. In this sense if you ban assualt rifles, you will have to ban pistols as well for it to be an effective meassure.

    Taking all this inot account, the indiviual has the right to self preservation as stated in the bill of rights. In this sence, if someone is intruding in my house, I have the right to preservemyself bu using a firearm to protect me. I would prefer to have a rifle to defend my family over a pistol since a rifle can hold higher calliber rounds that could stop inturders. The other reason a rilfe is beneficial is the fear of threats domestic and foreign. If a super alliance of Russia and China invaded the United States then I would like to a rifle to protect my country and myself. If the United States government ever became a tyranical governemnt then I would like a rilfe to protect myslef.

    All in all the assualt rifle is a made up term by gun control enthusiasts that want a dissarmed population that can’t defend themself agianst the threats domestic and foreign. Crime may be on the fall but a disarmed population is a weak population at the will of the governments need.

    [read less]

    Currently in the U.S law system, there is no legal definitrion for assualt rifles. Yet gun control activists claim assualt rifles are killing hundreds…

    [read more]
    0
  • Samuel from Virginia

    The idea that semi-automatic rifles must be banned is one step in the right direction. The problem is that a semi-automatic rifle is not a assault rifle. Most rifles have a 6-8 round clip and can shoot or can be modified to shoot at least 1 round per second, which is fast but only 6-8 rounds. The problem is when high capacity clips (10 or more rounds) are fitted onto these rifles. Then they become instruments of war. I am a hunter and have never ever needed more than 6 rounds in any gun. Quite often I use fewer than two rounds on any given day. A high capacity magazine just begs to be used for death. Some may argue that they need a magazine like this for the gun range but a gun range is used to improve accuracy and hone shooting skills, not to just waste ammo. Unfortunately people are still able to home build these high capacity clips but these often jam or do not cycle rounds as fast as manufacturers clips do. Banning or even enforcing a higher age limit for semi-automatic rifles begins a slippery slope that we will not escape. Every time we restrict something it eventually becomes normal and then the next step is restricting it again until there is no end.

    [read less]

    The idea that semi-automatic rifles must be banned is one step in the right direction. The problem is that a semi-automatic rifle is not a assault rif…

    [read more]
    0
  • Amanda from Ohio

    No one wants gun violence. My advice, pray for peace not for our rights to be taken away. Freedom is a fundamental aspect of America. We all have the freedom to make choices. Guns are our second Amendment right, and if restrictions are made on this amendment, then our freedom is also being restricted. Therefore, would we really be completely free? No. Also, if guns are taken away, people will still find a way to get them. If no else has guns to fight back, how will we protect ourselves? We can’t. Asking for our rights to be taken away is one and the same as asking to make ourselves vulnerable. We need a peaceful nation, not a corrupt on. Banning this weapon will result in the long term damage of our nation. Do not be ignorant America. Fight for your rights!

    [read less]

    No one wants gun violence. My advice, pray for peace not for our rights to be taken away. Freedom is a fundamental aspect of America. We all have …

    [read more]
    0
  • Nick from Texas

    I think the clear answer to this is no. A majority of firearms currently in possession of the American populace are semi-automatic. Taking away semi-automatic rifles does nothing but leave the American people with nothing to defend themselves with besides bolt action or other slow, breech loading weapons. It also does not make a mass shooting any more hard to commit. The University of Texas Clock Tower shooter was armed with a bolt-action rifle and killed 17 people, and wounded 31, no semi-automatic rifle required. Also, considering most gun violence is committed using pistols, not rifles, this wouldn’t help to significantly alleviate the issue at the heart of the oppositions arguments. The other problem is that banning semi-automatic rifles will really only affect law abiding citizens, and not criminals who will continue as they do now to not only posses semi-automatic, but fully automatic weapons. Also, you really can’t classify semi-automatic rifles as “assault rifle”, because assault is a verb, not a noun. You can attack anybody with literally anything, and it is an “assault insert noun here”. Banning “assault weapons” and semi-automatic weapons doesn’t benefit any Americans, and does nothing but infringe on the Constitutional rights of millions of law abiding, patriotic Citizens of the Republic.

    [read less]

    I think the clear answer to this is no. A majority of firearms currently in possession of the American populace are semi-automatic. Taking away semi-a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Meah from Pennsylvania

    Guns are not the reason people get shot. The people who pull the trigger are the reason people have died. Guns physically can not shoot by themselves.

    0
    • Ricardo from Florida

      You must have no problem giving terrorists weapons of mass destruction or North Korea nuclear weapons then……

      0
  • kat from New Jersey

    i dont think banning these weapons is the answer, i think putting stricter regulations on them instead will help fix the problem.

    0
  • Hannah from California

    If we ban all semi-automatic rifles it leaves the people at an unfair disadvantage. If only the military and police have access to semi-automatics then what is to stop tyranny? Regardless of what guns were present when it was written, the second amendment was to ensure that the people would have the ability to protect themselves against a potential tyrannical power in government. We must preserve our rights. The main issue concerning school shootings is health care and education. We must increase funding to education and health care to make access to mental health treatment more available, and to ensure that our students are aware from an early age that harming other people is not acceptable.

    [read less]

    If we ban all semi-automatic rifles it leaves the people at an unfair disadvantage. If only the military and police have access to semi-automatics the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Zac from Illinois

    We shouldn’t restrict guns themselves, should we ever need to rebel against the government, if it becomes tyrannical. Instead, we should lean towards responsible gun control. Cooling periods, mandatory training sessions, mental health and background checks.

    [read less]

    We shouldn’t restrict guns themselves, should we ever need to rebel against the government, if it becomes tyrannical. Instead, we should lean towards …

    [read more]
    0
  • alex from Texas

    They should not be banned because the actions of a few terrible people should not restrict the rights of everyone else. The second amendment secures us of our right to bear arms, and thus our right to self preservation and protection of property. Thomas Jefferson himself wrote a letter allowing a man to arm his ship with cannons in order to defend himself on the seas.

    [read less]

    They should not be banned because the actions of a few terrible people should not restrict the rights of everyone else. The second amendment secures u…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kurt from Iowa

    Until the Left has an answer for going into the underground world and gang lands to take their guns…no actions should be taken against law abiding citizens that went through the legal process to get their gun(s).

    [read less]

    Until the Left has an answer for going into the underground world and gang lands to take their guns…no actions should be taken against law abiding c…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alexander from Tennessee

    The right to keep and bear arms is clearly outline in the constitution. Criminals do not obey laws. We cannot just ban guns and expect criminals to give them in. Criminals are criminals because they disobey the law. The ban on assault rifle would only keep people from defending themselves. The ban would also make people unable to defend themselves in case of a tyranous government. The reason for the Second Amendment was so that people could defend themselves from their own government. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun

    [read less]

    The right to keep and bear arms is clearly outline in the constitution. Criminals do not obey laws. We cannot just ban guns and expect criminals to gi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Michael from Nebraska

    An assault weapons ban was successfully passed in 1994 under President Clinton. The ban ended in 2004. A Department of Justice study found there was no statistically significant change in the amount of mass shootings or gun homicide during this period. Any assault weapons ban is hard to implement because gun manufactures can work around the regulations to make guns that won’t be banned but still shoot rapidly. Furthermore, 15 million Americans own an AR-15 for home defense and have not committed mass atrocities. The real issue we should be talking about in the wake of the Parkland shooting is the failure of existing laws and government agencies. The police were notified about this murderer 49 times and the FBI twice. Semi-automatic weapons may look scary, but the real scary part of this debate is how detached from the actual specific situation of the Parkland shooting this whole discussion is.

    [read less]

    An assault weapons ban was successfully passed in 1994 under President Clinton. The ban ended in 2004. A Department of Justice study found there was n…

    [read more]
    0
  • Alexander from Florida

    The Second amendment is very clear “shall not be infringed”.

    0
  • Tom from Massachusetts

    Further restrictions on the public only strip even more power from the people and put it in the hands of the few in government. What is the government more afraid of: an armed populous that can keep extremist administrations in check, or a unarmed populous who can’t do anything but obey.

    [read less]

    Further restrictions on the public only strip even more power from the people and put it in the hands of the few in government. What is the government…

    [read more]
    0
    • Abhiraman from Maryland

      However, you also vote for that same government. You have the choice over which government you want- one that supports your views or one that doesn’t.

      0
  • Taylor from Ohio

    Guns are not the problem, the mental health standpoint of people is the problem.

    0
    • Kyle from California

      From my research paper on this argument: Psychology today,one of the foremost news outlets for psychologists can be quoted to having said after the Parkland shooting in response to the President’s tweet blaming mental health as the underlying issue behind these mass shootings that, “As a professional behavioral scientist, I am disappointed by such a simple characterization of such a significant issue.”, and “There are at least two foundational causes as to why this event occurred. If we really care about our future, then we need to address both of these issues.” If the opinion of Dr. Geher, doesn’t convince you on this issue perhaps some data will help. Vox looking at data collected by Columbia Psychiatrist Michael Stone from his database of mass shooters found that “…only 52 out of the 235 killers in the database, or about 22 percent, had mental illnesses.” They then quote Michael Stone’s report, saying, “The mentally ill should not bear the burden of being regarded as the ‘chief’ perpetrators of mass murder,”. So clearly mental health is part of the problem, but I would hardly call 22% the chief issue when 100% of these killers had guns.

      This argument when you look at the facts doesn’t have much weight behind it.

      [read less]

      From my research paper on this argument: Psychology today,one of the foremost news outlets for psychologists can be quoted to having said after the Pa…

      [read more]
      0