Assualt Weapons What are they good for?

[Oregonhunter5]

Let's clarify a few things.
An assault rifle is a rifle used to "assault" a human or target.
If it was the 1800's it would be a colt peace keeper.
If its today, it's drowns, and robots, and remote controlled buggies.
The term assault rifle is misleading, and gay.

 

[oknow]

what get me the most is a lot of gun stores and alike are selling assault rifle's instead semi auto sporting/utility rifle's.
We should let them know they are adding to the misconception of the public ignorance instead of defending the semi auto's.

 

[PaulZ]

That was meant as "hyperbole" hy·per·bo·le (h-pûrb-l)
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
[Latin hyperbol, from Greek huperbol, excess, from huperballein, to exceed : huper, beyond; see hyper- + ballein, to throw; see gwel- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Anything of the sorts would likely do just as much damage to their own military & national guard bases in towns. I don't know about you but i don't crap in my own bed.

But i might in yours

In plain English; If you believe that you and your rifle are any threat whatsoever to the armed might of the United States, you are not that bright.

 

[PaulZ]

There is a definition of "assault rifle" Google it. How does one drown a Robot?

Let's clarify a few things.
An assault rifle is a rifle used to "assault" a human or target.
If it was the 1800's it would be a colt peace keeper.
If its today, it's drowns, and robots, and remote controlled buggies.
The term assault rifle is misleading, and gay.

 

[PaulZ]

I think we should forward this to Joe Biden's committee on gun control. They really deserve to know what kind of simple minded lunatic they are up against.

I believe the weapon (AR15) supposedly used by these last two shooters were specifically chosen (by those actually behind all this) because they are as American as mom and apple pie, and therefore the hardest targets to ban. Malign them, guilt by association, make them "scary" and it's easier to ban them

Too many markers of malignant design. Another is the instant suicide of all of them when they are confronted or have completed their mission. Dead men tell no tales

 

[accessbob]

In plain English; If you believe that you and your rifle are any threat whatsoever to the armed might of the United States, you are not that bright.

Singly, no but a couple million together could be a problem.


Sent from my LG Optimus Elite using Tapatalk 2

 

[timac]

If you believe that you and your rifle are any threat whatsoever to the armed might of the United States, you are not that bright.[/QUOTE]

Well goat herders in Afghanistan sure have beenound:

 

[PaulZ]

If you believe that you and your rifle are any threat whatsoever to the armed might of the United States, you are not that bright.

Well goat herders in Afghanistan sure have beenound:[/QUOTE]

The Vietnamese were pretty good too. Like the Afghans, they were not fat old men playing at soldier.
BTW; The US failed to nuke Vietnam and they will not nuke the rag heads but, do you have any doubt whatsoever that
they would take out Northern Idaho if it were a real threat?

 

[PaulZ]

It could be, however; there would be 500000 Colonels and no grunts. The amount of Insulin and other medical supplies would kill your supply chain.

Singly, no but a couple million together could be a problem.


Sent from my LG Optimus Elite using Tapatalk 2

 

[freestoneangler]

Was the term assault weapon what they were originally called or is this just another clever description from the side that preaches the benefits of diversity but does not practice it?

 

[Squidly]

where have you been squidly? that is exactly what i said. Name Calling. democrats calling republicans names and vice versa, if you want me to make it more clear, the lack of respect for your fellow American if they dont think like you do(generalization not meaning YOU). Thinking that as long as you are the 51 percent you can cram your idea's down the other 49 percents throat whether they like it or not. if you have read this forum or any article on Yahoo, most the arguments end in someone calling someone else a teathugger nutbag, or a demorat or a republicon. Put a gun in these 40 year old childish KIDS hands and yes they will start shooting each other sooner or later cause they never grew up.

Yes, I see a lot of name calling, most of which comes from the younger crowd who have not yet learned how to control their impulsive nature.

I will have to disagree with you on "40 year old childish KIDS". Past the age of 30 most people have pretty good control of their impulses. If they were going to "start shooting at each other", that would already be happening. How many 40+ yo active shooters have you seen in the news lately? Let me save you some time - NONE.

 

[mkwerx]

#1 reason - they're fun to shoot
#2 reason - they are excellent defensive weapons against home invaders
#3 reason - they're excellent weapons to defend against looters. Look at NOLA in the wake of Katrina. Think that can't happen anywhere else in the US? Wait till a massive quake hits the PNW and devastates us like the flooding did in NOLA. Tell me that a bolt action or low capacity revolver is what you want to defend your family with.
#4 reason - should it be necessary, to participate in the violent overthrow of a tyrannical government - which is exactly the reason the 2A was enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It says nothing of hunting, sporting, or self defense - the founders enumerated it explicitly because they wanted an armed population to be able to defend against their own government should it turn on it's people.

 

[timac]

Well goat herders in Afghanistan sure have beenound:

The Vietnamese were pretty good too. Like the Afghans, they were not fat old men playing at soldier.
BTW; The US failed to nuke Vietnam and they will not nuke the rag heads but, do you have any doubt whatsoever that
they would take out Northern Idaho if it were a real threat?[/QUOTE]

No, to many innocent Americans would be lost if Nukes were used, but those willing to destroy any last vestiges of America would.

 

[timac]

It could be, however; there would be 500000 Colonels and no grunts. The amount of Insulin and other medical supplies would kill your supply chain.

Just a few of our Fore Fathers with no Insulin, poor health and supplies. They had the HEART to be free from tyranny.

Nathaniel Greene 40+ pronounced limp, overweight
Anthony Wayne 38, overweight
John Glover 30, hepatitis
Henry Know 30+, extremely overweight
Daniel Morgan 40+ bad legs and back

 

[RovinTexas]

They are a part of you if you ever served in the Military and used them. That was your soul mate and your protector. It not only protected you, but the soldiers around you. There is also sport competitions, predator hunting, and home defense. If there ever was a time when you did have to pull a weapon in your house, you will project yourself in a more dominant way if you feel your have superior weapons to those you are going up against and therefore can take control of the situation more efficiently.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Just a few of our Fore Fathers with no Insulin, poor health and supplies. They had the HEART to be free from tyranny.

Nathaniel Greene 40+ pronounced limp, overweight
Anthony Wayne 38, overweight
John Glover 30, hepatitis
Henry Know 30+, extremely overweight
Daniel Morgan 40+ bad legs and back

Don't forget the 78 year old widower who attacked the retreating redcoats all alone as they retreated from Concord. He had a musket and two pistols and set up behind a rock wall and opened fire on hundreds of armed men serving the mightiest empire in existence. He took 14 musket balls, was found later that day by a nearby physician, (who patched him up) he survived, married a younger wife and had more children. He lived into his 90s

I see this paul character as Grima Wormtongue from the LOTRs series. Just forget the evil orcs and go back to sleep, sleep..

 

[DuneHopper]

I have to say I did some research and have found no reports of any
firearm assaulting anyone so not sure why anyone would want and assault weapon ?

But seriously still have read allot since I posted the OP awhile back and not one real good argument of what they are good for.
I went out on Tuesday and fired our SKS with Nato 223's and why it was fun, we talked about it later that night and said unless we are looking to begin guerrilla ware-fare what good is it ? Hell ya it is fun to shoot, but that does not answer the question.
And before I get the obvious question why do I have one? Because I can, and that is a stupid answer but is the only answer most seem to have and in a society trying to convince others of the right to have it, that a dumb argument, when the left is saying it kills kids and we say because we can.

I can get a permit to own a tank also, but what freaking purpose is that for? I think the standard high capacity high velocity rifles that are military grade weapons have no need in a society that say gun are safe.

I believe most weapons are safe I believe people are not.
We own many firearms, but I see SKS, AK etc as weapons not firearms and I think that no one since I posted this has been able to understand there is a difference, between a weapon and a firearm, and the purposes are their if people are honest .

 

[WhyteCheddar]

I have to say I did some research and have found no reports of any
firearm assaulting anyone so not sure why anyone would want and assault weapon ?

But seriously still have read allot since I posted the OP awhile back and not one real good argument of what they are good for.
II went out on Tuesday and fired our SKS with Nato 223's and why it was fun, we talked about it later that night and said unless we are looking to begin guerrilla ware-fare what good is it ? Hell ya it is fun to shoot, but that does not answer the question.
And before I get the obvious question why do I have one? Because I can, and that is a stupid answer but is the only answer most seem to have and in a society trying to convince others of the right to have it, that a dumb argument, when the left is saying it kills kids and we say because we can.

I can get a permit to own a tank also, but what freaking purpose is that for? I think the standard high capacity high velocity rifles that are military grade weapons have no need in a society that say gun are safe.

I believe most weapons are safe I believe people are not.
We own many firearms, but I see SKS, AK etc as weapons not firearms and I think that no one since I posted this has been able to understand there is a difference, between a weapon and a firearm, and the purposes are their if people are honest .

Actually you just refuse to accept the many good reasons that have been listed.
And again, the people have a right to ARM themselves for or against any for, or purpose they deem needed for their protection from said foe/thief/threat.
The answer to your question is simply found by reading the 2A.
No further response from you is required other than 'I understand now' or 'yes but I don't support the 2A as written'.

 

[beavertonbuck]

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

The 2nd amendment is about self-defense up to defense against a tyrannical government. Its not an easy answer to make because it makes people uncomfortable. I point out however that doesn't necessarily mean revolution per se but maintaining your natural rights. When someone points out that we have a democracy (constitutional republic but you've got to focus on one thing at a time) and that could never happen I point to: forced sterilization, purposeful infection and non treatment of syphillis, internment of Japanese Americans, studying chemical weapons by dispersing chemicals in St. Louis slums.

Though that the real reason I can own an AR-15 I usually say because I want to and that they are fun as hell to shoot.

 

[mkwerx]

I have to say I did some research and have found no reports of any
firearm assaulting anyone so not sure why anyone would want and assault weapon ?

But seriously still have read allot since I posted the OP awhile back and not one real good argument of what they are good for.
I went out on Tuesday and fired our SKS with Nato 223's and why it was fun, we talked about it later that night and said unless we are looking to begin guerrilla ware-fare what good is it ? Hell ya it is fun to shoot, but that does not answer the question.
And before I get the obvious question why do I have one? Because I can, and that is a stupid answer but is the only answer most seem to have and in a society trying to convince others of the right to have it, that a dumb argument, when the left is saying it kills kids and we say because we can.

I can get a permit to own a tank also, but what freaking purpose is that for? I think the standard high capacity high velocity rifles that are military grade weapons have no need in a society that say gun are safe.

I believe most weapons are safe I believe people are not.
We own many firearms, but I see SKS, AK etc as weapons not firearms and I think that no one since I posted this has been able to understand there is a difference, between a weapon and a firearm, and the purposes are their if people are honest .

You are either being purposefully obtuse and ignoring the reasons given in this thread, or there is no answer which you will deem good enough.

"assault weapons" in the hands of the population put them on as even a standing against Government soldiers as we are going to get, without raiding military bases and armories, should the need ever arise to overthrow our own government or fight back against it. THAT is the reason the 2A was put into place. Not hunting, not target shooting, not defending your own life against a mugger - it was to defend against our own government, and foreign invaders. THAT is the best reason to own an assault weapon.

That they are also fun to shoot is a "good" and valid reason to as well, because it is our right to own them and if you enjoy shooting them, that reason is as valid as someone else's choice NOT to own one.

That they make excellent defensive weapons is another "good" reason - and just as valid as your choice of a shotgun, pistol, revolver, or pointy stick.

So either stop pretending that you support the intent of the 2nd, and admit that you think we should all be subject to government rule and be lucky if we're allowed some hunting arm (which will eventually be banned too, especially after someone uses Granddad's deer rifle to "snipe" people with) - or pull your head out of the sand and see their purpose for what it is, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread.