In response to:

The Need for Semi-Automatic "Assault" Weapons

Bill2365 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 3:10 PM
The types of situations where assault weapons would be useful are extreme and rare situation. But that being said, I think people should be allowed to own them even if they don't need them. It seems like a similar situation that exists with high end sports cars. No one needs a car capable of 180 mph in a country where the highest posted speed is 75 mph. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to own one. Same applies with assault weapons.
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 3:15 PM
There's no such thing as "assault weapons".
Bill2365 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 4:16 PM
There are a class of weapons known as assault weapons as opposed to assault rifles. Assault weapons are semi-automatic versions of fully automatic assault rifles. Basically no different than the semi-automatic rifles you'd use for hunting. The only difference is they look scarier than a hunting rifle even though they have about the same capabilities. The only difference is you can get clips that hold lots of rounds. My rifle clip only holds four-three more than what I need to kill a deer.

By now, we’ve heard the argument about semi-automatic "assault" rifles: nobody needs one. We’ve heard the only reason why someone would obtain this kind of weapon is so they can kill people, which is far from the truth. We’ve also heard the argument from both the Left and the Right that a pistol is how someone protects their home.

"I really don’t know why people need assault weapons. I’m not a hunter but I understand people who want to hunt," Republican Rep. Peter King said on Morning Joe earlier this week. "I understand people who live in rough neighborhoods...

Sunday, May 19 | 01:12 AM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 01:12 AM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 01:12 AM ET
Sunday, May 19 | 01:12 AM ET