I am currently not an "assault weapon" owner, I am however fascinated with the AR-15 style weapon, have used one in a recreational activity (target shooting), and plan on owning one in the near future (barring the ban of assault weapons) I have no problem with extensive background checks, or placing a limit on magazine rounds, I support those measures completely. I dont, however, support banning the actual assault weapon. I dont see why responsible assault weapons owners and manufacturers should be punished because of someone else's irresponsible actions. Theyve done nothing to lose that right, so why take it away from them? The second ammendment states that you have the right to bare arms, it doesnt declare which ones, making it legal to possess assault rifles in a semi-automatic capacity for lawful uses (self defense, hunting, recreational uses) By banning assault rifles you would be infringing on the general publics' right to legally bare arms of their choice. A more logical way to combat the mass killings is increase armed security in areas of mass gatherings (schools, office buildings, movie theatres, etc), more extensive background checks would limit the issuance of assault rifles to individuals that are not mentally stable enough to possess one. If you do that, you are neither infringing on peoples current rights, nor ignoring the gun violence epedemic, you are actually finding a way to appease both sides of the spectrum by striking a balance that still allows people their rights, while implementing more preventive, and in my opinion effective, measures to reduce the violence.
What do you think of this story?
Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
Be and editor! Choose an option below: