Yeah, but anti-war protestors use the first amendment to hide their hate speech. I'm just interested in why there was a ban in the first place, and two, why do you need such a weapon? I mean, if the second amendment gives us the right to own and bear arms, then why don't we all have cannons in our front yards? Simply saying 'because the law says I can' doesn't really cut it for me. But that's just me. I can understand a handgun, a pistol, a rifle, etc. I would just like someone to give me a practical reason as to why they would want an assault weapon- other than saying 'because I don't have to show a need'.
Let's say you're living on a decent-sized piece of property and you spot some dudes you know intend to do you and your family harm coming onto that property. An assault rifle allows you (if you know what you're doing) to get off many shots - some come with 20 to 30 round magazines - within a short period of time with a high degree of accuracy at long range. No other type of firearm has that capability.
"I'm just interested in why there was a ban in the first place, and two, why do you need such a weapon?"
Okay, number 1: These firearms were banned because several isolated lunatics used them to kill people in a few mass-killing incidents. This terrified the more moderate soccer moms out there and made the idea of a ban palatable to politicians who previously would have rejected such a thing. Also, the anti-gun Left was WAITING for an excuse to get even a SMALL victory in their mad rush to ban anything with which a citizen could plausibly defend himself.
Number 2.: These weapons, being based on military firearms, are perfect for the defense of one's home, the taking of small game, or the defense of one's basic liberties against tyranny. In essence, they are simply perfect as all-around, general purpose rifles. They are, for the most part, the most reliable, easy-to-shoot, inexpensive(pre-ban), and robust firearms out there. Plus, their ammunition is and remains cheap. Oh, and they're great good fun to shoot, too.
Let's be clear...the 1994 ban covered not the weapons themselves, but certain features thereof...like flash supressors, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonet lugs. Their magazine capacity was limited to ten rounds, versus the 20-30 of preban models. What most folks, myself included, object to is the "camel's nose" that this represents. That, and the overall idiocy of it. Seriously, banning a gun because of a bayonet lug?!? Not even the psychopaths responsible for the bans ever used bayonets in their madness! So desperate were the gunbanners for a "win" that they abandoned any rationality.
I hope that this helps. Need to know any more?
Imagine you are a grocery store owner in some mythical place that, for the sake of this argument, we'll call "Los Angeles". Some social group gets enraged over some issue, say, for example, the results of some trial. Imagine that they start rioting, and large numbers of them come to destroy your property. Imagine that they are pulling people out of vehicles and beating them; and show a clear willingness to kill them. Now, it might be a stretch, but imagine that the police and fire departments are refusing to go into the area and stop the violence and put out the fires.
The only thing standing between your death and the destruction of your life's property is a rifle with a large capacity magazine. Not only that, but with an "assault" rifle, you can even be generous and fire "warning shots" to keep them away from your property, actually saving the lives of the people trying to kill you and destroy your property.
Now, I'm sure you'll say that this could "never happen" in America, but for the sake of the argument can't you imagine that it just might?
Please show why you need a "handgun, a pistol, or a rifle?"
And by the way, a pistol is a kind of handgun, but not all handguns are pistols.
A well trained dog is an "assault weapon".
Stay safe; stay armed.
Please keep pinging me even though we don't agree on this issue!!!
First off, "assault weapon" is an evil-sounding phrase without a precise definition. It basicly means "whatever firearm the liberals don't like at the moment". Currently, it effectively means any military-style semi-automatic rifle that can accept a high-capacity magazine (a magazine being the thing which holds the ammo). For some liberals, it also means any handgun that accepts a large-capacity magazine
Why would one want one? Several reasons
I'm just interested in why there was a ban in the first place, and two, why do you need to:
say such things?
follow that religion?
print such news?
assemble publicly in such groups?
have the same rights as whites?
keep the fruits of your own labor?
have women voting?
Get the point? None other than uber-liberal Alan Dershowitz said that allowing gun bans was a bad idea because it sets a road map for other rights to be attacked.