Why SHOULD people be allowed to own semi automatic firearms?

[Big-Foot]

Because we are CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS. As citizens we have the RIGHT to. If a citizen commits a crime with a gun he loses some of those rights. So leave those citizens that don't use them for crimes the heck alone!

Analogy: A co-worker thinks that driving while using a cellphone should be illegal. I say why punish those who do use them responsibly, there are already laws against reckless driving, not using turn signal etc. Leave me the heck alone!

[gb_in_ga]

Why should we, the common folk, be allowed to own semi-auto arms? For the same reasons that we should be allowed to own full auto arms.

A> The 2nd Amendment specifies arms, not what type. The implication is Any and All arms.

B> That is significant because of the REAL, historical, reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment isn't there to allow for target shooters, or hunters, or even for "conventional" self/home defense -- even though it certainly does not prevent such. It is there to give the citizenry a credible deterrent against foreign invasion and especially our own government run amok. Since governments (both ours as well as others) certainly DO have semi- and full- automatic weapons, and since those weapons outclass all other small arms, the only way for the citizenry to have a credible deterrent is to be likewise armed. In short, it allows our people to be able to resist invaders no matter what our own government does, and it allows our citizens the ability to REVOLT!

[oneounceload]

I guess the question back should have been' "Why SHOULDN'T we be allowed"...and full auto as well....

someone's earlier analogy about owning a car that can go faster than the speed limit is a good one as well....especially since more people die in accidents....

maybe those folks should also be asked why should criminals be constantly released back into society to commit more crimes over and over??

find out what blather site they got that from, move-on. org, or brady or whereever and see what else is being stired up....

[surg_res]

Libs always use the "you don't need it for hunting" argument for their will to ban semi-autos etc.

Just tell them in a straight face that some guns are made to kill people and that is the primary reason we have a 2nd ammendment, not to preserve the right of hunters to hunt, but to preserve the right of the people to uprise and overthrown the government or other enemies of the citizens should it be overtaken by factions not representing the majority. Guns + Land + Gold = Power.

[gb_in_ga]

...or other enemies of the citizens should it be overtaken by factions not representing the majority.

I won't even go that far. What you are suggesting is that having a majority's support makes something "right". I deny that. The majority can be dead wrong, and the 2nd amendment exists in part to insure that an oppressed minority can rise up and right the wrong that the majority has enacted.

Again -- right and wrong are not determined by majority vote. Right and wrong are transcendent concepts, and have nothing to do with opinions or votes.

A common illustration of this is:

Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for lunch. The 2nd Amendment gives the sheep the means to contest the vote.

Yes, I realize that your main concept is that of a small pack of wolves gaining control over a whole herd of sheep, and in that context it is correct. Just keep in mind that just because the whole herd of sheep make for a majority, their "rightness" does not reside in their majority. Their "rightness" resides in their "rightness", nothing more, nothing less.

[El Paso Joe]

There is an old Sufi truism (which means, I guess, that it is true for old Sufis) that goes something to the effect that "The answer to a fool is silence..." I don't think that there is a rational answer to someone foolish enough to ask a question like that. At least in my experience. I would be tempted to respond with something like "Interesting. Can you say more about that?" and let them babble while you think about important things. In my not so humble opinion.

[Guy B. Meredith]

The answer above that the question should be "why shouldn't citizens be allowed to have semi auto arms" is the correct answer.

Individuals should not be restricted in any way unless they endanger others. Saying they MIGHT do something wrong is assumption of guilt, which is contrary to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

[raimius]

...because no one should have to worry about measuring their powder charge while someone else is trying to murder them!

...because there is no reason I shouldn't have one!

...because I have rights.

...because blanket punishment for indivdual crimes is rediculously stupid!

...because the 2nd Amendment is about preventing oppression, not duck hunting!

[mellow_c]

I hope we can find a way to spread all these wonderful messages to the rest of America

[ConfuseUs]

Explain to them how a home invasion works: A group of thugs ranging in number from 2-15 individuals forces their way into a home and basically uses their superior numbers to cow the inhabitants into becoming prisoners in their own home. Then the thugs rob, rape, torture, even kill the victims. A semi-auto firearm does a lot to take away their advantages in numbers since the user has so much more firepower than with a 6 shot revolver.

If they can't see that they would feel very bad having to deal with 10 pitiless assailants using only their persuasive skills or a NEF single shot instead of a semiautomatic gun they're probably determined never to agree with you anyway.

[Gbro]

In the fall of 2002;
When Lee Malvo and John Muhammad paralyzed the east coast with there murderous rampage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Boyd_Malvo
The Rifle used was a Bushmaster simi auto. There was only 1 shot fired in each murder, Yet the gun control crowd wanted to outlaw the bushmaster rifle. Like that was the only kind of gun that could do such a thing.
When the truth of the matter is any gun that can be restricted is a golden prize to their cause. Like the Carcano rifle after the assassination of JFK.

[Edward429451]

Because there's evil people in the world?

It has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution merely states that the government cannot infringe our already established right to live as we please.

Remember that all important truths are simple. Anytime someone wants to get all technical about anything, there's your red flag and your hand should be sliding towards your gun. You can't compromise with criminals, wether they be in government or not.

[TPAW]

I've read many places before that the Police have no legal responsibility to protect someone from a crime in progress.

That's not really true. Among other things, A police/peace officer takes an oath of office to protect "life and property". At least here in NYS they do. Can't speak for the rest of the country.

[Stiofan]

Actually it is true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

Regardless of your law in NY, anyone suing a juristiction for failure to protect would have their case thrown out, including in NY State.

[TPAW]

Individuals should not be restricted in any way unless they endanger others. Saying they MIGHT do something wrong is assumption of guilt, which is contrary to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

That, is an excellent point!

[TPAW]

Regardless of your law in NY, anyone suing a juristiction for failure to protect would have their case thrown out, including in NY State.

If true, all the more reason we should be able to be armed to the teeth, without politicians dictating to us. That ruling supports our cause. I'm not a lawyer of constitutional law, but I feel there are some glitches in there. If the law were such a blanket one, then why hasn't anyone brought that out and be done with this whole thing about not being allowed to own semi-autos? It would sure make a lot of us relax a little if your statement was correct. I hope it is. If the police don't have to protect us, then we should be able to protect ourselves with whatever it takes..........

[SPUSCG]

banning above .50 cal......does that include .58 caliber muskets?

[TPAW]

New Yorkers. Here's an example of what your dealing with in the Assembly who has voted to take away many of our gun rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

[deanf]

All authority that the government has was delegated to it by us. This includes the authority to posses and use military arms. We certainly did not give up this authority when we delegated it.

[Ridge_Runner_5]

Semi-Automatic refers to everything that is not automatic or bolt action....that includes all pistols, AR-15s, AK-47s and whatnot...

My official reason is: "To protect us from the people who want to protect us"

[MTMilitiaman]

If I was to reply to that question at all, it would be along the lines of 44 AMP's post. However, I would find such a question insulting by its very nature and probably refuse to answer it on the grounds that free people do not ask permission to exercise their rights, nor do they feel particularly inclined to justify them.

We're talking rights here, not privileges. A privilege is earned and can be taken away on a whim. A right is yours naturally, granted by a higher power. It is assumed then, that the right is yours. From a legal standpoint, this means that in order to deny you a right, the burden of proof lies with them, not you. Ask your friend to tell you why you shouldn't have semi-automatics. Remind him that this is you specifically, not the American population as a whole.

And as suggested, you could always point out that the First Amendment guarantees his right to free speech, but by his logic, not necessarily his right to free speech by cell phone or internet. Your friend should understand that picking and choosing rights based on one's perceived legitimacy of need is dangerous ground to tread.

[MailleMas]

Ok, quick preface: I am Canadian so really have no business jumping in, but I also have a big dang mouth and can't help it!

Saying there is no point in arguing with someone asking that question doesn't help gun supporters cause in the least. You should be salivating at the opportunity to convert someone like a Jehovah's Witness hearing someone say "I'd like to learn more about saving my immortal soul." The 2nd amendment DOES protect the right to bear arms, with the purpose of keeping the gov't accountable for there actions, in extreme cases. In reality, the likelihood of the general population being able to do this without completely destroying everything else they hold dear (not to mention the support of your military) is bloody unlikely.
The practical difference between a semi and a repeater isn't that large under most circumstances. There are times when a semi is more useful (see self defense) and times when it is more damaging (see Dec. 6, 1989 @ L'Ecole Polytechnique Massacre). It is a matter of degree and situational appropriateness. There in lies the crux to me. There is a saying 'Those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither'. True, to a point. You shouldn't be able to run amok in wal-mart with a flame thrower, but that is impinging on the safety and freedom of others. Owning (and safely and thoughtfully using) semi automatic rifles does not impinge on the freedom or safety of others any more than any other firearm. Using ANY firearm thoughtlessly or with malice is dangerous, a semi auto only slightly more so than a repeater. Trading the freedom to use one responsibly for the small increase in public safety is a dangerous precedent.

[Alex45ACP]

The primary reason is so that we can defend ourselves from our own government. Over 260,000,000 people have been killed by governments in the last century alone.

I believe we should have unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons also as well as rocket launchers and things of that nature. Yes, I am 100% serious.

[Webleymkv]

Why shouldn't people be allowed to own semi-automatic firearms? When the obvious anti-gun, kool-aid drinking replies come then go to examples of other things. Why do you need to own that gas guzzling, pollution producing classic car? Wouldn't just a model suffice? Why do you need that great big house that consumes all that energy? Wouldn't a small condo be enough? Why do you need to go out and play golf on that property that could be used for a public park or homeless shelter? Couldn't you just watch Tiger Woods on TV? Just keep at that, specifically on his or her hobbies and you'll soon get your point across.

[SilentHitz]

Why SHOULD people be allowed to own semi automatic firearms?

In short, for the same reason we should be allowed to vote. It's one of our rights, and I'm tired of all the PC crap that wants to erode them...nuff said.