1280 Shares

Why do some republicans believe people should own semi automatic machine guns?

Why do some republicans believe people should own semi automatic machine guns? Topic: How to write an amendment to minutes
June 16, 2019 / By Lexi
Question: If the NRA got its way people would be carrying semi automatic machine guns, how much deer can one man kill per second? I guess the goal of the machine gun is to be able to kill more then 200 to 600 deer a minute right? Tell me why you republicans want people carrying machine guns besides being able to kill more then 10 per second? why do you support semi automatic machine guns? Besides being able to kill more then 10 deer per second?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Why do some republicans believe people should own semi automatic machine guns?

Judy Judy | 2 days ago
The Republican and NRA reasons aren't the real reasons why banning assault weapons is a bad idea. Most Republicans don't have any clue or loyalty to the 2nd Amendment or why it was written, either. They just want the redneck vote. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or home defense. It's vague and is argued and interpreted all the time, but the clue is in the beginning, "a well-regulated militia being necessary" for a free state to exist. Some people think that simply means it was because citizen militias might be needed against foreign powers. I believe it refers more broadly to citizen militias fighting against any tyrannical power, foreign or domestic. After all, the government of Britain was the legitimate government before the Americans rose up and overthrew them. George Mason knew this wouldn't have been possible if there hadn't been so many volunteers who could show up with their own musket and fight in Washington's guerrilla army. Much care was taken with the Constitution to try to prevent tyranny in the U.S. Government, I think the 2nd Amendment is clearly part of that. Supposing the US government were to turn Fascist, what would the people do? Fight with .22 caliber hunting rifles against tanks and machine guns? Or just accept it? Without having weapons as effective as the weapons held by the government, the people are at the mercy of the government. Then the people aren't the government at all anymore, at which point the American Revolution would die. In Occupied Iraq, every household is allowed to have one automatic weapon, usually the inexpensive and reliable AK-47, for defense purposes. It's pretty much the bare minimum for the people to be able to take care of themselves when up against superior military force. Shotguns won't do it. Does that mean everyone would be going around shooting each other, no... gangsters would, but then gangsters can't legally own guns anyway, and can get them whether they're legal or not. As for hunting with semiautomatics, that should never, ever be legal and any dork who does that should be strung up by their heels. They're not hunting weapons, they're for fighting. For if and when tyranny raises its ugly head again. This was all kind of an issue in the '90's, when some people got wacky with the notion that the Federal Government was a foreign conspiracy and started forming state Militias. Remember McVeigh had been in the "Michigan Militia," though it's totally unfair to blame his bombing on them... then there was the Ruby Ridge incident with white supremists with banned weapons... it's too bad the 2nd Amendment got such wingnuts as spokespeople. Also the Branch Davidians... after 2001, everyone forgot about all that though.
👍 172 | 👎 2
Did you like the answer? Why do some republicans believe people should own semi automatic machine guns? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: How to write an amendment to minutes


Judy Originally Answered: Why do some republicans believe people should own semi automatic machine guns?
The Republican and NRA reasons aren't the real reasons why banning assault weapons is a bad idea. Most Republicans don't have any clue or loyalty to the 2nd Amendment or why it was written, either. They just want the redneck vote. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or home defense. It's vague and is argued and interpreted all the time, but the clue is in the beginning, "a well-regulated militia being necessary" for a free state to exist. Some people think that simply means it was because citizen militias might be needed against foreign powers. I believe it refers more broadly to citizen militias fighting against any tyrannical power, foreign or domestic. After all, the government of Britain was the legitimate government before the Americans rose up and overthrew them. George Mason knew this wouldn't have been possible if there hadn't been so many volunteers who could show up with their own musket and fight in Washington's guerrilla army. Much care was taken with the Constitution to try to prevent tyranny in the U.S. Government, I think the 2nd Amendment is clearly part of that. Supposing the US government were to turn Fascist, what would the people do? Fight with .22 caliber hunting rifles against tanks and machine guns? Or just accept it? Without having weapons as effective as the weapons held by the government, the people are at the mercy of the government. Then the people aren't the government at all anymore, at which point the American Revolution would die. In Occupied Iraq, every household is allowed to have one automatic weapon, usually the inexpensive and reliable AK-47, for defense purposes. It's pretty much the bare minimum for the people to be able to take care of themselves when up against superior military force. Shotguns won't do it. Does that mean everyone would be going around shooting each other, no... gangsters would, but then gangsters can't legally own guns anyway, and can get them whether they're legal or not. As for hunting with semiautomatics, that should never, ever be legal and any dork who does that should be strung up by their heels. They're not hunting weapons, they're for fighting. For if and when tyranny raises its ugly head again. This was all kind of an issue in the '90's, when some people got wacky with the notion that the Federal Government was a foreign conspiracy and started forming state Militias. Remember McVeigh had been in the "Michigan Militia," though it's totally unfair to blame his bombing on them... then there was the Ruby Ridge incident with white supremists with banned weapons... it's too bad the 2nd Amendment got such wingnuts as spokespeople. Also the Branch Davidians... after 2001, everyone forgot about all that though.

Ginnie Ginnie
The Second Amendment was never about hunting. So you're attacking a straw man. The Second Amendment is a right so that Americans have the means to defend themselves against an usurping government entity, sort of like Hitler did to Nazi Germany, and like people are fearing Bush is trying to do with the Patriot Act and the whole Terror Scare. If the time were to come, I'd want the means to defend myself. And I'm grateful that the founding fathers had the foresight to give me that right. I would think semi-automatic machine guns would be more helpful than hunting rifles in those circumstances.
👍 70 | 👎 -4

Denise Denise
I was listening to this liberal the other day. He was explaining that there are too many people on the planet and that the problem was only going to grow worse. His solution was that excess people would have to be culled. He indicated that the 3 billion was about the right number, and that there would soon be 9 billion. I've heard this sentiment from other liberals, that there needs to be a die-off. In light of that I no longer view my light infantry rifle and handgun as adequate. I'm thinking we should all have Javelins and RPGs to protect us from being culled.
👍 69 | 👎 -10

Callie Callie
Newsflash: 1. Semi-automatic machineguns don’t exist. 2. Legally purchasing a machinegun can cost as much as a vehicle. 3. The blackmarket and the NRA are not interlinked. 4. Fear-mongering will be the death of us.
👍 68 | 👎 -16

Alysha Alysha
I think law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own fully automatic machine guns, especially since I realize-- as you apparently do not-- that the 2nd Amendment isn't in the Constitution so we can go deer hunting. And I'm not a Republican.
👍 67 | 👎 -22

Alysha Originally Answered: In your opinion, why do some people think that guns and bombs are the answer?
Well, it takes much more effort to really persuade someone. Humans are stubborn; it's their nature. Killing someone is much more efficient, as well as more fun for some. In many English (as a first language) classes, persuasive essays are the ones that are the most difficult yet frequently taught. There is a small, flickering hope that guns and bombs will be replaced by strong minds. Don't call me a pacifist, though, I'd rather use guns and bombs.

If you have your own answer to the question how to write an amendment to minutes, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.