Try the political quiz
@9DC6MQZComments3yrs ago

No, there should not be a mandatory buyback of assault weapons

What is an assault weapon anyway? Automatic weapons are already banned leaving semi-automatic weapons, a category in which both rifles and handguns are included. The difference between a rifle and a pistol that both shoot one round per trigger pull is negligable, considering pistols are available chambered in many of the same rounds as rifles. All guns could be classified as assault weapons. The right to arms is fundamental to the American constitution. The effect of the second amendment on the likelihood of government tyranny is one of the things that makes the USA superior to other nations. The weaponry citizens are allowed to possess is already less powerful than the weapons used by the government. Continuing to restrict firearms would lead to the deterioration of the US citizenry as a discouraging force against government malfeasance, which is when it would start to become more prevalent and overt.

The law-abiding citizen should be entitled to carry the means of equal force against that which a criminal attacker is likely to possess. Emergency response time is not adequate to protect individuals in a threatening situation where immediate action is required. Data shows that more lives are saved by defensive firearm use than are taken in destructive acts of violence involving a firearm. A criminal with a legal or illegally acquired firearm will have more time to continue a mass shooting if emergency services and police are the only option, whereas the rampage could more quickly come to an end with individuals in lawful possession of firearms present.

I would argue that as the constitution entitles all citizens the right to bear arms, restrictions are on dubious grounds. The second amendment was not made for muskets. It was not made to be static in time. The second amendment was made to recognize the right of the citizen to a fair fight against a rogue government or criminals. This requires that the citizen has access to the same level of force likely to be used against them in these situations. A mandatory buyback of "assault weapons" would be a performance of disrespect to the core values of the nation, trampling all over the rights that American people have come to take for granted. It would be a glaring indicator that the time the writers of the amendment envisioned has come to pass, and would push Americans who love their nation to a point where they would have to consider invoking the rights granted.

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Social Issues?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

7 Replies

 @KeenSwan from North Carolina  disagreed…3yrs3Y

Interesting perspective, however, there are a few points to consider. Firstly, the term "assault weapons" generally refers to semi-automatic firearms designed for rapid fire and combat use. They are often characterized by certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, and more. The distinction between a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic rifle is not negligible when considering capacity for harm. The latter, due to its design and power, has been disproportionately used in mass shootings.

Secondly, while the Second Amendment does provide the right to bear arms,…  Read more

 @9T6S2DX  from Nebraska  disagreed…2yrs2Y

Engaged Gun Buyback

I thoroughly disagree with everything you said. A lot of what you said was misguided, not based on facts, or completely incorrect.

First, "assault weapon" does NOT "generally refer to semi-automatic firearms designed for rapid fire and combat use.". I will tell you why, then I will tell you what it really means. Any firearm that is semi-automatic, is inherently not built for rapid fire. Hence the reason it is semi-automatic. One round per one trigger pull. That is not a characteristic of any firearm built for "rapid fire". Next, semi-automatics are not built for…  Read more

 @9T6S2DX from Nebraska  commented…2yrs2Y

Engaged Gun Buyback

Also, more people die from soda machines than they do "assault rifles" every year. They just publicize these occurrences for the obvious agenda furthering narrative. It's sad because I truly feel like you and most people who want gun control, have good intentions and truly value life but you have been fooled into thinking the government, more specifically, Democrats feel the way you do. The truth is, they don't care one but about the life lost in these shootings. They have 1 goal and 1 goal only and that is to disarm Americans. They just use fabricated emotions as a disguise like they care. They don't. Hence the reason they immediately use these shootings for political gain and nothing else. If they cared, they would fix the root problem and leave the guns alone.

 @KeenSwan from North Carolina  corrected…2yrs2Y

I looked it up and 2-3 people die per year from vending machine-related deaths and hundreds die from assault rifles per year.

 @9VZHHFPRepublican from Minnesota  commented…2yrs2Y

Informed Gun Buyback

"They are often characterized by certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, and more.", other than a minority of rifles, most shotguns and, revolver style handguns, most firearms have detachable magazines and a lot of the time firearms that don't have them are able to store just as much ammunition as those with detachable magazines.

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this comment.

@9DC6MQZ

Last activeActivity1 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias100%Active in
Comments  1
PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies