THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY

Should The 2nd Amendment Cover Assault Weapons?

They're too dangerous to be allowed

Americans need them for protection

 Getty: Joe Raedle / Staff

Assault rifles’ great potential to kill large groups of people in a short amount of time make them weapons of war that are not necessary for self-protection, even under the Second Amendment, report Meagan Flynn and Fred Barbash of The Washington Post. Several Maryland courts ruled that such firearms pose too great a danger to be available to every citizen. In fact, 21% of mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 involved assault weapons, and 50% involved guns with large-capacity magazines. Homeowners don't need such heavy firepower to defend themselves. AR-15-like weapons have been used against police and civilians too often.

Keep on reading at the Washington Post

The Second Amendment exists to allow Americans to protect their freedom from state tyranny and their homes from criminals. Assault weapons are a necessity in guaranteeing both of these factors, holds David French of National Review. The argument that the Second Amendment only covers muskets is erroneous. Such an antique weapon wouldn’t protect any citizen against a soldier or a criminal with even the most basic modern weapon. That is the purpose, to be able to defend themselves against such groups, which is why modern assault rifles are a necessity and a right. Limiting it would undo the principles that the United States were founded upon.

Keep on reading at National Review
35.7%
Where do you stand?
64.3%
SHOW COMMENTS
Write a response...
See what else you’re missing
single