Assualt Weapons What are they good for?

[clearconscience]

Where's the moderators, can't we have a no dueshe bag policy here?

What an idiot!

 

[drew]

Where's the moderators, can't we have a no dueshe bag policy here?

What an idiot!

That policy would really cut down the membership.

 

[clearconscience]

Yeah hell i would have been gone long ago.

The question is stupid though. Let's just look at the basics of the 2nd A.
To be able to defend yourself and America from tyranny. Well if our govt ever becomes (snickering) a tyranical entity it is the duty of every citizen to rise up and fight such tyranny. In that respect every American should have a firearm. And not a musket. We as defenders of this land and it's constitution should be able to acquire whatever arms would be needed to do so.
If I could afford a tank I would try to buy one.
Hell we give the muslim bros a carrier full of fighter jets, what you mean I can't get one!

And to one posters reply about natural diasters, etc. during katrina people were looting, raping, murdering, you name it. And that includes to police.
Nit to mention the displaced gangs and murderers set up shop in surrounding states/cities

 

[SkipConley]

I think the term "assault weapon" is just a term used to market military looking guns to military-ish buyers and it is also a term used to classify the same guns negatively for those who would rather they were banned. Most of us conjure up a similar image when the term "assault weapon" is heard, even though a hammer is an "assault weapon" when used to assault. Of course, a hammer isn't very accurate at 10, 20 or 200 feet and it's hard to carry more than a few at a time. But, if your "deer rifle" has a thirty or fifty or 100 round magazine attached to it, that might indicate that one of it's intended uses could be as an "assault weapon."

 

[speeddemon94]

The term "assault weapon" is a term made up by the media and leftist politicians to promote fear. It is not the actual definition of anything.

 

[SkipConley]

The media always looks for simple language to describe complex things. More often than not, it's done to save column inches or time in a newscast for advertising. I doubt that the term "assault weapon" was used instead of the legitimate term "assault rifle" out of a conscious plot to frighten the public with such a small change in terms. Both liberals and conservatives have thrown the term "assault weapons" around for decades as common vernacular. As someone farther left than almost any US politician I've ever known, I can say that nothing any "leftist politician" has said ever frightened me, least of all what term they use to describe a gun. Whatever fear the public feels is the result of the violence that occurs so frequently, not the result of anyone talking about it. How we shall fix that is the only question.

 

[SkipConley]

Does anybody really believe that the citizenry of the USA will ever be able to successfully redress its grievances against our government and its local, state and/or federal law enforcement and/or military with an arsenal from the internet or Walmart or the Bass Pro Shop?

 

[speeddemon94]

Obviously you have not come to the right forum.... And are not worth the effort to even talk to. Let alone attempt to convince you that the second amendment shall not be infringed. I'm all done here.

 

[bzltyr]

Clips?..again. Its a magazine.... I like AR's for all types of shooting. I like it and have it,because I can. I like all the parts you can get and change it the way I like it, decorate it with my own style, because its mine. Its great for target shooting, dont have to reload all the time, competition shoots, GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. There has beenmore people killed/murdered with hammers,etc then with guns. Good people dont kill good people, they kill bad people. All the stuff going on now is all political, and its jump on teh bandwagon, if all the politicians pulled there head out, stopping taking bubblegum from the wants, we would be fine. It didnt work in Clinton times, it wont work now.

 

[SkipConley]

Worthwhile forums entertain differing points of view. What is the point of only hearing opinions that are the same as your own? Debate and discussion are a kind of democratic idea, strongly associated in the USA with the First Amendment.

 

[moose]

If I could afford a tank I would try to buy one.

No need for money.

 

[SkipConley]

How much is a drone and a Hellfire missile? Will it work from my Mac?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Does anybody really believe that the citizenry of the USA will ever be able to successfully redress its grievances against our government and its local, state and/or federal law enforcement and/or military with an arsenal from the internet or Walmart or the Bass Pro Shop?

Absolutely freakin lutely. We outnumber them 80 to 1 and we would fight for liberty and family, they fight for a lousy paycheck

Their high tech toys will run out fast and will be hard to use on hit and run squads. Tell me how effective they have been in Afghanistan

For the trained, a knife or bare hands will get you a pistol

A pistol will get you rifles

A rifle will get you rocket launchers and more

Et cetera

 

[Squidly]

Absolutely freakin lutely. We outnumber them 80 to 1 and we would fight for liberty and family, they fight for a lousy paycheck

Their high tech toys will run out fast and will be hard to use on hit and run squads. Tell me how effective they have been in Afghanistan

For the trained, a knife or bare hands will get you a pistol

A pistol will get you rifles

A rifle will get you rocket launchers and more

Et cetera

All true, but how many of that 80:1 have enough training to be effective? How many have the guts to follow through?

On the other hand, How many active duty military personnel would go home to defend their own? How many leos would side with the citizenry?

I think it would be enough. And *they* know it.

 

[SkipConley]

80-1? You might be overestimating, just a bit, the willingness of most people, including most gun owners to join an armed rebellion against their own fellow citizens just because the far end of the right-wing thinks it's a good idea. That has to do with brains, not "guts." Maybe you don't realize it, but not everybody fantasizes about playing army or hates such a large portion of their neighbors that they would actually shoot at their compatriots. This is supposed to be a civilized, "Christian" country, is it not?

 

[Squidly]

80-1? You might be overestimating, just a bit, the willingness of most people, including most gun owners to join an armed rebellion against their own fellow citizens just because the far end of the right-wing thinks it's a good idea. That has to do with brains, not "guts." Maybe you don't realize it, but not everybody fantasizes about playing army or hates such a large portion of their neighbors that they would actually shoot at their compatriots. This is supposed to be a civilized, "Christian" country, is it not?

Where is your sense of logic? Have you ever studied history? Are you just fishing or do you really believe you are going win any one over to your point of view with that argument?

I borrowed this from a friend's facebook page:

A friend wrote this. I think it sums up where I stand nicely.

Stick to your guns, no matter what.

If they come to take them by force, they have declared war on the Constitution, and on you. At that point, war is joined, just as it was on another big gun confiscation raid on April 19, 1775. If it was legal in 2012, it's legal in 2013 and it will be forever. If they say otherwise, they are liars and traitors and oath breakers and domestic enemies.

If you are disarmed and led away in cuffs, are you so sure you'll be bailed out? And not taken to a "new place" with "new rules"?

Every survivor of every genocide says the same: when they come to take your guns, shoot them. Make them work for it, and THEIR system is overwhelmed, because they don't have 20 million FLEAs to do armed battles all over the country, instead of nice polite arrest raids like those that that Glen "Ghandi" Beck envisions, with the NRA lawyers throwing your bail and suing the pants off the .gov.

It's like the Solzhenitzn paragraph "how we burned later in the camps" because they didn't resist the GRU/KGB in the lobbies and stairwells with axes and knives.

Entire divisions of Russian troops hiked home from WW1 in 1917/18, carrying their rifles and swords and other sidearms. Very early on, Lenin decreed that public safety demanded they all be turned in, under penalty of death. And so they were disarmed, but not the Party members! Then came the purges, the Great Terror, the gulags, and tens of millions of dead. So well preserved was the fiction, that most Russians, when arrested, thought, "Gee, there must be some mistake. I haven't done anything wrong. They'll let me go in a few hours." (Wrong anwer.)

If you give up your arms, you are placing your entire trust in the permanent future benevolence of the U.S. govt. This trust is invariably fatal. The German gun registration laws and limits on "military" weapons (then, Mausers etc) were put in in the 1920s Weimar Republic,years before Hitler.

They were all common sense and reasonable gun control laws, I'm sure today's liberals would agree 100%. Then Hitler comes along, and uses the list to first disarm, and then ghetto-ize or "deport" and finally gas the Jews and others, killing millions.

Genocide, using the "common sense" gun registration lists to locate their most dangerous enemies. But first, they just come to pick up the weapons. "No trouble, foks!" They come for the mass arrests later, when the people are disarmed.

Millions of Polish Jews were rounded up this way, when the German police only needed a 1-10 ratio to thier victims. 100 German military police, 4-fs in their forties, bottom of the barrel conscripts, would round up and murder a town of a thousand. Force them to gather, then march groups at gunpoint into the woods for execution. A 1-10 ratio means the killer police are not worried at all. The victims were all disarmed. If they were armed, every village would requre a major military effort.

I'm sorry, I do NOT trust that our .gov won't turn as mean as the old USSR to its "class enemies," the MSM's duly appointed scapegoats, us white racist tea-party terrorists, the bitter clingers.

Folks, they perceive that we are reactionary forces not only standing in the way of social progress and liberal utopia, we are actively blocking it. That makes us pure Evil, since their plan for utopia is pure Good. That means they will come to feel totally justified in seeking a "final solution to the bitter clinger question."

And once their mortal enemies (that's us) are disarmed and helpless...the temptation grows to simply do away with them. Bill Ayers thought they would need to murder 10% of the population to achieve their utopia.

As it was with the Turkish Armenians, German Jews, Russian Kulaks, Chinese, Ugandans, Guatemalens, Cambodians, Cubans, Rwandans, and on and on, history's lesson is clear:

STICK TO YOUR GUNS!

by Matthew Bracken

 

[DMcGPNW]

To the OP: The nature of your question concerns me. Your professed "love" of your gun and its "raw power" raise red flags as to your mental state or your authenticity as a firearm owner. Further, your need to divorce this discussion from the second amendment suggests you realize that is all the reason necessary to justify keeping and bearing any firearm, but you want everyone to find justifications to exercise that right in regard to "assault weapons".

As to assault weapons, this an intellectually dishonest term. There is no assault weapon category for firearms. It is not a term of art in the industry. The term Assault Weapon is a legislative construct and the definition of the term can be changed at the whim of legislators. The most disturbing component of the term "Assault Weapon" is that it is most assuredly designed to cause people to confuse it with the actual defined term of art "Assault Rifle".

Now, as to what purpose do we have possessing the firearms considered under the AWB? The majority of the firearms considered under the ban are: carbines; with a semi- automatic action; chambered in an intermediate round; with a detachable box magazine possessing a capacity greater than 10 rounds. As a general response to why would I possess one of these types of firearm, I would possess one for the same reason law enforcement uses that type of firearm. It is an extremely effective and flexible defensive tool. I feel I have a responsibility to protect myself and my family. I do not count on law enforcement to insure my safety. I can tell you from professional experience that incidents of preventing crime, versus arresting criminals after commission are rare to nonexistent. Finally, I will make one reference to 2a argument. It is through the inherent rights referred to in the second amendment that we ultimately preserve all other rights that are foundational to our society. (I also have a fundemental problem with legislating away a right, in violation of the admonition of the Bill of Rights, in the interest of public safety. If it works on guns it applies to speech and all other rights.) If you believe we the people do not need to worry about that anymore because we live in a ascended society free of the failings of the individual I don't know if there is anything left to discuss.

 

[DMcGPNW]

Slow to post is good rule of thumb. I got tired of reading the responses and posted the above. Went back after the fact and saw the OP intended to sound like a rube.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

^^^^^what he said^^^^^

 

[scottnbarbi]

Worthwhile forums entertain differing points of view. What is the point of only hearing opinions that are the same as your own? Debate and discussion are a kind of democratic idea, strongly associated in the USA with the First Amendment.

No doubt about it. It didn't take me very long to find out that this is a forum where you can only say what they want to hear, not have an actual discussion. Differing views are strongly discouraged here, and that's unfortunate in my oppinion.