Semi automatic rifles should not be banned

1. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." This is important because during that time period the militia did not have any weapons to give, it was the responsibility of the people to bring their own. The people supplied the militia with weapons, not the other way around. Meaning that 2nd amendment was directly linked to the right of the people. The second amendment was created to give the people a way to defend from a tyrannical government, one that becomes oppressive. It was the last resort in the event that the democratic process failed the people. 2. Semi-auto rifles have a legitimate use for self defense: There are certain situations when it would be advantageous for a citizen to have one of these rifles. Some examples are listed below with corresponding video links and the bottom of the round. -A mother of two heard someone break into her house and she rushed her children into a closet upstairs. The man eventually made his way upstairs and opened the closet door they were hiding in and the mother fired 6 rounds, 5 of which struck the intruder. The man was still able to escape the scene and lived despite his wounds. -During the LA riots, Korean store owners were some of the only people to have completely untouched stores in that section of town. Thats because they were the only ones defending their store with firearms, some of which were semi-automatics. - A 15 year old boy was babysitting his little sister when two men broke into the home. The boy ran to his fathers ar-15 and began firing on the intruders, killing one of them. - Store is being invaded by two armed intruders, the security guard retrieves an ar-15 and drives them away. - 4 men attempt a home invasion and the home owner uses an ar-15 to return fire and drive them away. There are countless examples of situations just like these proving that these weapons are perfectly acceptable and sometimes necessary to have an advantage over a criminal. Sometimes a revolver is not going to be enough to get the job done. What if the people in these videos only had 6-10 rounds (as many gun grabbers are demanding) Take the mother of two hiding in the closet for example, if their had been two men instead of just one, she and her two children could have been killed because she had spent all 6 rounds trying to take out the first man. She would have to take the time to reload and hope the second man didn't get to her first. If the Koreans had limited capacity weapons such as the revolver they could have been killed and their store burned to the ground like those surrounding them. 3. Gun control leads to confiscation: History is scarred with examples of how gun control has proven to be fatal to the people that it is imposed upon. No matter how many people have been killed by individuals using these weapons, the number pales in comparison to the number of people killed by their own government following a gun confiscation. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and other dictators like them used gun control to confinscate the weapons right before they began killing millions of unarmed civilians. It is both arragant and foolish to make the assumption that our own government would never go tyrannical. 4. The majority of people demanding a ban know next to nothing of the weapons they wish to ban. 5. Gun control does not work: Every mass shooting in recent history has taken place in gun free zones. These are places where the shooter knows he can achieve the highest number of kills without having to worry about return fire until the police show up. Cities like Chicago are a prime example of how the strictest gun laws have had virtually no difference on shootings. There has been virtually no evidence to support the idea the gun control reduces gun deaths. The FBI statistics prove that rifles kill less people than handguns, hands and feet, knives, shotguns, and other weapons. It comes in last place in terms of number of people killed. https://ucr.fbi.gov... Drunk driving kills more people every year than pistols do and yet no one is suggesting that cars be banned. But why not? Unlike firearms, cars are not a right, they are a privilege. The reason no one is suggesting it is because it does not make sense to punish the majority for the actions of the few. Everyone is in agreement that cars a vital part of our society, and there are a great number of people that believe firearms are even more important. Keep in mind that every law the government passes is enforced by point of gun. Every single law, no matter how ridiculous. If you don't pay your traffic tickets, eventually you will have police officers show up with a warrant for your arrest and they will resort to using those guns should you attempt to fight them off. The constitution is also defended by point of gun, but by the people should the government become tyrannical. If gun control really worked cities like Chicago would be the safest places in the country but what the statistics show is that the cities with the most concealed carry permits are actually the safest. More to the point, criminals do not respect the law. If a ban on semi-auto rifles were passed do you really think that criminals would turn them in? Or would they see it as making their job that much safer. Criminals don't fear the laws, they fear an armed citizen that can defend themselves. http://www.infowars.com... http://www.justfacts.com... http://truthinmedia.com... (who needs a semi auto rifle?) The conclusion: Semi automatic rifles account for a very small percentage of murders in the US. There are virtually no statistics that claim otherwise. If people were truly so concerned with gun violence the pistol would be the weapon to ban as the stats prove. So why do we not see many people calling for an all out ban? One of the main reasons is because that is without doubt a direct assault on our constitutional right. There is no getting around that. But as I've proven in this debate, people that wish to cause massive death don't need rifles. The recent terrorist attack in Nice, France proves it. The attacker drove a delivery truck through a crowd killing 80 people and remember that vehicles are a privilege, guns are a right! Those that seek to do harm will always find a way to do so. The Oklahoma city bomber didn't use a gun to blow up a building. 19 terrorists didn't use guns to kill over 3000 people on 911. Besides if banning something makes it harder for criminals to get maybe we should ban drugs like cocaine, crack, heroin, and meth. Maybe if we ban those drugs we won't have the epidemic we do today. The reality is you only drive the product underground directly into the hands of those you didn't want to have them in the first place. Nixons war on drugs has been a complete failure. Drugs are virtually everywhere in the country because criminals do not care about our laws. So do you really think it's a good idea for criminals to be the only ones in possession of these weapons? Why give them the upper hand? I list most of my sources from youtube because it is a much quicker way of delivering massive amounts of information opposed to asking people to read all the information. This should save you an exceptional amount of time.