Gun control elicits the full spectrum of opinion, much of it not necessarily based on fact.
For instance, I have extended family in law enforcement. One of them, a veteran homicide detective who you’d think would be in full opposition of gun control, once asked me, “Does anyone really need an assault weapon?”
Nothing against him (he’s one of the more jovial individuals I know), but “need” has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Even if you have the means to buy an entire warehouse full of “assault weapons” and all you do is look at and occasionally polish them, this is your right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
Here’s the text:
“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.“
The 2nd Amendment does not specifically address assault weapons.
On clarifying what an assault weapon is, John Lott:
“…the M&P 15 and the AK-47 are “military-style weapons.” But the key word is “style” — they are similar to military guns in their aesthetics, not in the way they actually operate. The guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban (which was enacted in 1994 and expired ten year later) were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military but semi-automatic versions of those guns. The civilian version of the AK-47 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as deer-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.”
More Guns, Less Crime. This is not an opinion. It’s fact.