David M. Manes Says Ban Assault Weapons

He thinks this should happen for the following reasons:

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 1994 classified certain types of firearms as “assault weapons” and prohibited their manufacture and sale to civilians.

No, it didn't. you should read what you reference. Like this part (emphasis mine):

prohibition on the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic "assault weapons" manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.

Which means so called "assault weapons" were never banned. They were just as available in August of 1994 as they were in October 1994. Next!

There are several stock arguments used by pro-gun advocates against most types of gun restriction, but all of them fall when applied to the AWB.

Ok, let's see about that....

The first typical argument is for the right to self defense. Self defense may be a valid justification for possession of some firearms, but it absolutely does not apply to assault weapons. Unless you live in Baghdad, there is no incremental benefit to your self defense if you are packing an Uzi instead of a glock or an AR-15 (pictured above) instead of a 12-gauge. There is a reason why these weapons are considered “assault weapons;” they are designed for attacking a large force of enemies in a combat situation.

No incremental benefit between a Glock (handgun) and a rifle? The reference to an Uzi notwithstanding, a rifle can be much better for self defense than a pistol or a shotgun. You'd know that if you knew anything about guns, but you don't. You prove that by confusing a military assault rifle with the political construct "assault weapon". The two terms are far from interchangeable. The first is a military weapon used for "attacking a large force of enemies in a combat situation", the second is a normal rifle made to look like a military one. Of course, in my over-twenty years in the Army, never once did we ever train to attack a large force of enemies. We always strove to be the larger force. I think you've watched too many movies.

I like the next one he mentions:

The second typical argument is the right to hunt. Surely no explanation is necessary why assault weapons are not useful or necessary for hunting animals.

Two things to say about that: there is no right to hunt. Never has been, never will be. It's a privilege, plain and simple. It's usually anti-gun types like yourself that bring this up. Secondly, why isn't an "assault weapon" good for hunting? they are reliable, accurate, rugged, light and chambered in many calibers. Truthfully, the standard AR 15 round is too small to hunt deer with, but the AK-47 style rifles are about the same as a 30-30.

The third typical argument is the Second Amendment. This one has always been rather shady because most NRA members ignore the crucial antecedent to the phrase about “the right to keep and bear arms” that expresses the purpose of a “well-organized militia [national guard].”

It expresses a purpose of the Second, not the purpose. Besides, you need to look up the definition of militia. Never mind, I'll do it for you:

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

I don't see anything about the National Guard.

Even the most hardcore NRA supporters realize that the line must be drawn at some point; most agree that the people should not have the right to keep and bear howitzers, B-2s, tanks, or mortars. This line is usually drawn when there is no legitimate self-defense or hunting right that would be furthered by a certain type of firearm or if that right is likely to be a danger to society overall.

Ok, but I've addressed your self-defense and hunting points, so I guess these rifles are OK now?

The last argument is somewhat less typical, but should still be addressed, and that is that the people must retain the ability to match the government’s military power to prevent tyranny. Ironically, this usually irrelevant argument becomes the most relevant when we discuss a potential AWB. It is a nice idea in theory that if only enough people had assault weapons and other guns, then we could overthrow the government if it came to that. But there are way too many logical holes in that belief for it to be sustained. With modern technology, even widespread ownership of assault weapons among civilians would not be enough to check governmental power, even if people were willing to rise up in armed revolt.

Like it's not working in Iraq now, and Afghanistan before that?

Seriously, this kid's whole article must be based on what sounds good to him rather than any facts in evidence.

When you base your position on lies and half-truths, it's easy to take your piece apart.