Argument: An assault weapons ban would violate the second amendment

The Second amendment “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” [1] would be violated by a ban on assault weapons. This right clearly does not limit what arms a citizen may bear. The ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller clearly reaffirmed that the government can’t ban certain classes of arms and also that this right is not connected with service in a militia.

[1] ‘Second Amendment – Bearing Arms’, Findlaw, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

Candidate 1: "Supreme court rulings have been overturned before. This is an area where the bill of rights is clearly outdated and out of touch; today’s militia is clearly the standing army and so this should just be interpreted as only granting members of the army the right to carry arms. The maintenance of “the security of a free state” clearly is not something that today is done through the citizenry having access to guns, whether assault weapons or not. Moreover it is difficult to see why if there is a right to bear arms that is unconnected with the security of the state these arms should be these particular assault weapons rather than types of weapon that we are not looking to ban. Would a rifle not be as useful in the event of invasion as a semi-automatic? The Bill of Rights was written at the end of the eighteenth century when the weapons were muzzle loading muskets it was not conceived with powerful, accurate, modern weapons that are capable of mass murder without reloading."
Candidate 2: "Black plastic on a gun does not make it any more lethal than other guns with wood stocks. Stopping the manufacture of such guns would hand over a lucrative market to the Russians and Chinese rather than reducing the number of assault weapons in the world. [1] Drugs cartels would simply find new routes to get the weapons they need, after all they are already dealing in illegal activities making the guns they want illegal on both sides of the border rather than just one is unlikely to stop them.

[1] Falconer, Bruce, ‘Semiautomatic for the people’, Mother Jones, July/August 2008, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/07/semiautomatic-people"
Candidate 3: "There is a rational basis for banning assault weapons as they are a firearm of choice among criminals. In a study of young adult purchases of handguns in California buyers with minor criminal histories were twice as likely to purchase automatic pistols as those with no criminal history. This was even higher at five times as likely for those who had been charged with two or more serious violent offenses. [1] This means those purchasing assault weapons intend for them to be used for violent ends.

It is true that assault weapons are used in a small percentage of crimes, although 1% is disputable in Miami for example 15 out of 79 homicides in 2006 involved assault weapons, [2] but the opposition ignore that large capacity magazines are used in a much higher percentage of crimes; between 14 and 26% before the 1994 ban. [3]

[1] Koper, Christopher S., et al., ‘An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003’, Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, June 2004, p.17 http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

[2] Associated Press, ‘Assault-weapon attacks on rise in Miami area’, MSNBC, 14 September 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20781848/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/assault-weapon-attacks-rise-miami-area/#.UM8YPW_r18E

[3] Koper, Christopher S., et al., ‘An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003’, Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, June 2004, p.18 http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf"
Candidate 4: "Of course a ban will not completely eliminate these weapons but it would reduce the supply and make it much easier for the police to seize the weapons so taking them off the streets. It would also be a step in the right direction in attempting to change public perceptions and amend the American attitude. It is understated just how relaxed American laws are in comparison to the rest of the world, even states such as Switzerland and Israel that are often highlighted by the NRA as being model states that allow gun ownership with few resulting shootings are much more restrictive than the USA. [1]

There is no reason to think that a black market is somehow going to result in more of these weapons being available so the fact that it will exist after a ban is not a reason not to go ahead with the ban. It is not ideal that a ban is not retroactive so leaving a large number of such guns in private hands but this number will slowly diminish over time rather than continuing to rise as it would under the status quo.

[1] Rosenbaum, Janet, ‘A League of Our Own’, Foreign Policy, 19 December 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/18/a_league_of_our_own"
Candidate 5: "The point of an assault weapons ban is not to completely ban guns but to ban guns that can fire large numbers of bullets rapidly and have no purpose other than to shoot people. The ban targets those weapons that are not useful for self defence or hunting. The opposition argument is essentially that because some guns are legal all guns should be legal; the line has to be drawn somewhere and there is little reason why the line at assault weapons is less logical than a line that allows some grenade launchers and shotguns while banning others? [1] Since this line is clearly arbitrary then we should move to the only non-arbitrary line, a full ban, a move towards which this ban is a step towards.

[1] Laurence, Charles, ‘Semi-automatics and grenade launchers are legal again in US’, The Telegraph, 19 September 2004, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1472121/Semi-automatics-and-grenade-launchers-are-legal-again-in-US.html"
Candidate 6: "Banning assault weapons is an infringement on Americans freedom to protect themselves; what minor civil liberties advances may be gained pale by comparison to this.

It is also unlikely that the police and the FBI would recognise the linkage between fewer guns in the civilian population and reducing the firepower of the police. Similarly the FBI is unlikely to monitor civilians less simply because there is one less reason. The justification of “preventing homegrown attacks before they are hatched” will still remain just as strong as before they will simply be looking for different things."
Candidate 7: "It is exactly correct that deaths as a result of assault weapons are a tiny portion of the total firearms deaths. There is also no way to know if those who were killed by these weapons would have been saved or whether their assailant would not simply have killed them with a handgun instead. Therefore to ban only certain types of guns does not address the issue satisfactorily because it does not take into consideration that any gun can kill."
Candidate 8: "The Second Amendment was not designed for only self defense and hunting. The idea that the common man should be reasonably able to protect themselves from tyranny, foreign invasion, and insurrection is a reasonable and just cause. But even if we were to accept that self defense and hunting are the only legitimate reasons for owning a gun then why should the state get to decide what weapons someone should use when hunting or defending themselves? That a gun may not be the best choice for these activities does not mean that it should not be a possible choice."

Supreme court rulings have been overturned before. This is an area where the bill of rights is clearly outdated and out of touch; today’s militia is clearly the standing army and so this should just be interpreted as only granting members of the army the right to carry arms. The maintenance of “the security of a free state” clearly is not something that today is done through the citizenry having access to guns, whether assault weapons or not. Moreover it is difficult to see why if there is a right to bear arms that is unconnected with the security of the state these arms should be these particular assault weapons rather than types of weapon that we are not looking to ban. Would a rifle not be as useful in the event of invasion as a semi-automatic? The Bill of Rights was written at the end of the eighteenth century when the weapons were muzzle loading muskets it was not conceived with powerful, accurate, modern weapons that are capable of mass murder without reloading.
