Faith Hope Charity wrote:First of all... what a vague question, secondly, what defines an assault weapon? Anyone can pick up just about anything and use it to assault someone else, so methinks the terms is more likely applied to a few tools that a few in the government would like to confiscate from the general law-abiding public and strengthen the hand of criminals.
I for one am not in favor of any weapons ban... weapons help keep the citizens and government on equal footing. I refuse to be a helpless subject with no means of recourse against an abusive, power-grabbing government.
This. You don't give prey animals a better chance against predators by cutting off their horns and hooves. There seems to be this notion that by disarming innocent people, we can save their lives by making them easier to kill. The would-be killers will be so deterred by the raw, intense ease that they'll just decide to do something more challenging. Indeed, by making it easier for someone to kill a bunch of people by disarming them first, we deter people from even entertaining the notion that they might possibly be able to get away with something so easy.
In addition, the second amendment is the only method of enforcement that the people have when it comes to defending their rights. Without the means to fight back, they'd be at the mercy of any agency or entity that said "Free speech? LOL. No. So shoot me. LOL. Warrant? ORLY?"
One could make the argument that the US military would crush any attempt at domestic resistance. The argument is then made that we should disarm the people even further, to make them more able to defend their rights. With less firepower. The oppressors will be nice to them if they just fulfill their servile obligation to die as easily as possible when police or soldiers want them dead. ...LOL.