Assualt Weapons What are they good for?

[davemata]

As the shootings have brought to light the assault weapon a gun of choice I was curious outside of the obvious 2nd amendment, why Assault Weapons and What are they good for?

It's good for scaring urbanites. How many people do you know with a full auto weapon? Those are assault weapons, anything else isn't.

If someone wants to buy one, they can buy one. If someone wants to shoot one, they can shoot one. Let's be realistic with ourselves here, it's a matter property ownership, and people getting on their knees to beg others to regulate what people can own. It isn't even a matter of safety, it's a matter of entitled people wanting to control what you can and cannot have. It's purely a power play. That's it. Power politics.

Why and what purpose do you see for them?
They are tools for defense, amusement, competition, and food generation. If people get stupid, they'll be useful for offense.

Why and what purpose do you think others should have for them?
All legal purposes.

Why get one?
Why not? I own many things that some sort of NIMBY/Nanny/Controller would say, why get one? Because I lack the fears, problems, a debased personality of a person who spends their time asking, "Why get one?" (Not implying you here, as from what I've seen, you aren't constantly crowing the "Why do people need that" line all the time.)

As for this:

...after all they banned full autos because of their destructive nature. What would one argue to keep assault weapons??

uhm, they're already banned, only assault weapons available now are extremely expensive and all what, pre-1984 in manufacture? I don't see the point in having one.

What I want to know is why are people pandering the "Assault Weapons R Bad" line with regards to CT, when the person didn't have an assault weapon.

 

[cueball1214]

Well What is the reason to buy a car that can go 120 MPH when the speed limit is 65? I have my AK for a few reasons. One, i like. Its damn cool. I like taking it out and shooting it. I have a 30 round clip. Why cause i don't want to stop and reload every 15 seconds.
I did by it for home protection. Now one would ask why don't you just get a shot gun, or a hand gun. Well, i do have a shot gun. Will be getting some hand guns soon. What happens if there is a natural disaster, something on the levels of Katrina or Sandy in the north west. Something seismic earthquake. Which is something that could very well happen. You lose law and order and you have looters roaming the streets. they are not going to get into my house. and if i do have to bug out with my family its nice to have a rifle that has a range. Some people call it paranoia, i call it being prepared for the worse.
Honestly i agree with Rusoarmo. I think that its great that a person form another country can come here and embrace our freedoms, but i find it disturbing that people that were born here take them for granted and want to limit them.

 

[Medic!]

Well you can allways buy them when the price is low. Then Jack the price up and sell them at the first sign of a gun ban!
Or hang on to them and know there price goes up every year. Heck an assalt rifle ban is like wining the lotto if you have enough of them stashed away! Same with mags and ammo......duh

 

[addiction]

Zombie Apocalypse......duh.

Don't doubt it.....from the CDC website

"Wonder why Zombies, Zombie Apocalypse, and Zombie Preparedness continue to live or walk dead on a CDC web site? As it turns out what first began as a tongue in cheek campaign to engage new audiences with preparedness messages has proven to be a very effective platform. We continue to reach and engage a wide variety of audiences on all hazards preparedness via Zombie Preparedness; and as our own director, Dr. Ali Khan, notes, "If you are generally well equipped to deal with a zombie apocalypse you will be prepared for a hurricane, pandemic, earthquake, or terrorist attack." So please log on, get a kit, make a plan, and be prepared!"

CDC - Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response: Zombies

 

[Medic!]

Crazy computer double post. Sorry.

 

[notazombie]

I think the firearm thing is not unlike any other "hobby" in that it is up to the individual's taste. I have a 1930 Ford model A which is a mild hot rod, there are are restoration purists that shake their head and ask why you would screw up an original car while some hot rodders will say that I need to ditch the fenders etc. I have what I have and do what I do because it is what I appreciate. Firearms are relatively new to me but I have several friends that have eclectic collections ranging from antiques to "assault" rifles and I have found likes and dislikes in all areas of their collections. I am thankful that we live in a country where we have been afforded the right to make the decisions and it is sad that thaose rights are threatened by the actions of a few disturbed people.

My feelings are very similar. In fact, I'd like to draw the parallel a bit further. I have personally seen the term "hot rod" misused in court purely for the purpose of emotionally swaying an uninformed jury. This is a fictitious and unrelated example but I think maybe it raises some good points:
Some yambag gets drunk and steals a "hot rod" then goes on a high speed chase before slamming into a school bus killing/injuring a dozen kids. What caused the deaths?
-Should we outlaw alcohol?
-Is the liquor store to blame?
-Was it Yambag Sr's fault for not sending Yambag Jr to rehab?
-The government's fault for not providing free rehab?
-Was it the "hot rod" owner's fault for not making it harder to steal?
-What is a "hot rod"? Do you define it by horsepower? 0-60 times? Top speed? Paint color? Is a black "hot rod" more dangerous?
-Would a smaller fuel tank have made a difference? Maybe no cars should have larger than 10 gallon capacity.
-Maybe there should be mandatory breathalizer on every car?
-Was it the school district's fault for not having drunk driver resistant buses?

The bottom line is that some people are prone to making dangerous decisions. These recently publicized events are horrible -- No one will argue that. No amount of finger pointing will bring back the lives lost. The fault lies with the people who took the lives. Period. We'll never really know why they go off the rails. They wanted the attention and their getting it. I wonder how much the 24/7 coverage is helping?

 

[netcarrier]

Hi All,

Frist of all, Good Job Nwcid you nail it, I like it.

Now I have this to say, Back in the 1790s People in this time had Flint Lock Rifles AKA (Also Know As) "Assault Weapon" of the day. Then back in the 1800s the Henry Repeating Rifles Lever Action Another "Assault Weapon" lets not forget the Winchester Lever Action Another "Assault Weapon". We can go on and on maybe I needed too. In 1900s the "German Mauser", the "Springfield 1903 A1", the "Colt 1911 Pistol", the "Winchester Pump Shotgun", "Thompson Submachine Gun" the "M1 Grand Rifle", the "M1 A1 Rifle", the "Colt M16" and all of these are "Assault Weapons".

Now let me tell you why people own these Weapons, History of the days of are forefather and being armed in case the USA was attacked. That is why the people of the USA back in the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s had these kind of Weapons at there homes. That is why we at this time need to own these kind of Weapons "Just In Case".

So you must remember it's not Gun that Kill people, It's People that Kill People. So I think that if more people had CHL/CCW permits and there were no places that are Zone; "No Weapons Zone". That the Bad Guys would start thinking that he or she may be shot by anyone at any place at any time.

Sorry for writing so much, But just my two cents or maybe a little more then two cent,

Tony Portland, Oregon Area

 

[Trailboss]

I personally feel that each citizen unless barred from owning due to mental health or criminal past should own and know how to use pistols and long guns that are the full equivalent of the military and law enforcement. We the citizens are the boss of the government, the police and the military. We are expected to maintain control over them and prevent them from becoming dictators by the use of these weapons. All other uses though valid are secondary in importance.

 

[Nwcid]

I personally feel that each citizen unless barred from owning due to mental health or criminal past should own and know how to use pistols and long guns that are the full equivalent of the military and law enforcement. We the citizens are the boss of the government, the police and the military. We are expected to maintain control over them and prevent them from becoming dictators by the use of these weapons. All other uses though valid are secondary in importance.

Here is another good one. Why shouldn't these people have guns? I am being quite serious here.

It use to be that if you got in "trouble" you went to jail/paid restitution and you were done. When you were done with your sentence your rights were restored. The current system restricts your rights even after you have served. The argument to this is "well they are criminals". Of course and my retort is that IF these "criminals" are so bad that they can not have all their rights and freedoms WHY are they even out on the street? The violence they carry with them is not based on if they have a firearm or not.

 

[Vantage]

That fact that you're considering this questions is what (I suspect) is upsetting a lot of the responders.

What you're basically asking is "why do we NEED this type of weapon".

First, fully auto's are not illegal... in any way. They're legal to own, and they're legal to use. Sure there are restrictions on who can own one, and how they can use it. But the same is true for my Honda Accord. Some people are not allowed to own cars, and all cars are restricted as to where they can be used. Yet Honda Accords are not considered partially banned, or partially illegal. My honda accord is also fully capable of mass destruction if I so chose to use it for that. Every morning I drive my kids to school past 5 or 6 bus stops each with 7-15 kids waiting right along the road side should I choose to go crazy and mow them down. Would that be the cars fault..... or mine?

You're question on "Need" is a dangerous one: Why do I need a lifted 4x4 pick up? I live on paved road. I drive to work on a paved roads, and my job is on a paved road. Why the "need" to waste all that fuel?

Why do we need cars that cost $200,000? You can't legally go that fast anyway so why have a car that allows someone to drive that recklessly.

Why do BBQ enthusiasts have BBQ pits that cost $10,000 or $20,000.

Besides... we're in a recession, people are hurting and need help, how destructive is it for me to be so wasteful? Obviously, I don't "need" as much money as I make. Maybe I should be reduced only to what I "need" and the rest given to others who are in need.

Some would say my argument doesn't apply, because I'm not comparing things as dangerous as guns.

How about alcohol? Alcohol has no purpose at all other than entertainment. And alcohol related deaths, injuries, and abuses are 3 times what all gun injuries and deaths are combined. Yet... there is no one asking about why we "need" alcohol.

The guy took 4 weapons with him. two pistols, an AR, and a shot gun. The current argument is that we should ban "assault weapons" because they are so dangerous. Well, after they ban assault weapons and the mass shootings continue then the obvious next step is to say, "Obviously that wasn't enough... we need to restrict more".

What if instead he had gone in the school with four 6-shooters.. revolvers like back in the old cowboy days. could he have still not killed 18 kids? What if instead he only killed 7... would that be acceptable?

You see... the "Assault Weapons" ban is just the beginning. They go after them because they're the easiest. They're scary looking, they're "military grade", and people carry lots of "fully loaded magazines" with "high powered bullets" capable for firing "multiple rounds within a minute".

But we all know that won't change a thing and it's just a foot in the door to go after the next, and the next, and the next.

 

[JGRuby]

Long gone are the days where the civilians can own what our military owns - if nothing else the cost is prohibative. I can think of many things i would rather do that to take on anthing armored with even a 50 caliber rifle. As civiialsn we dont have combat jets, helicopters and what not. DO any of you really think you could take on the military and win. We might have a few wins but overall the technology and might of the military would win. We have one thing on our side and that is the beleif that most of the men and women in our military have close ties to the civiiians of this country and would not kill thier own. History has shown that it could go either way but I would like to think this is our saving grace as civilians. SO when we start assuming that the right to own these firearms is going to be up to the job of possibly over throwing our tyrants then I just laugh and think what fools. This is my opinion.

James Ruby

 

[locobob]

First off the congress struggled to define "assault weapons" back in the 1990's because they are functionally identical to any semi automatic firearm, because of this they settled on largely cosmetic features to decide which weapons they thought were unsuited for civilians. Any semi-automatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine could be made into an assault weapon with the addition of features such as pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs and folding or telescoping stocks.
The Purpose of the Second Amendment was to establish State Militias as a primary defensive force, much like volunteer fire departments. The founders were fearful of concentrations of power and therefore sought to avoid the need for a large standing army by relying on citizen soldiers that could be called up in times of need. Typically militias were made up of adult males who were required to keep suitable arms and ammunition at home. Organizationally they tended to vary a good deal, some drilled regularly and were pretty effective fighting forces, others took their obligations less seriously.
The Second Amendment specifically protects "assault weapons" because they are particularly well suited for military use. This is still the case even though militias have fallen into disuse as the Second Amendment has not been repealed.
Besides the militia angle which as I mentioned above is still valid, people use semi-automatic military style rifles for a wide range of lawful uses including: hunting and varmint control (prairie dogs, coyotes, wild pigs etc.), personal protection (mainly in home), business protection (L.A. riots), private security, private training for military/police work, competition shooting (practical rifle, 3-gun, high powered rifle, etc.) and all manner of informal target shooting (plinking).

 

[greydog111]

As the shootings have brought to light the assault weapon a gun of choice I was curious outside of the obvious 2nd amendment, why Assault Weapons and What are they good for?

Full Auto's are already banned and anyone ever see a semi auto- with Nato-223 spraying out of a 30 round clip will tell you they are destructive. I live my gun and if a gun lover was a thing I am he, I truly love the pure raw power they have and beauty all the same. I have many weapons and not one assault weapon never have and never will.
I personally for me see no use for them.

Which brings me to the forum question, out of the second amendment right to have arms
Why and what purpose do you see for them or think others should have them. I am not asking to rehash the second
this is a strictly ownership and why even get one ?

Just wondered, it can be a hot topic please try and keep a cool head and think about the question it is a serious one to ask as I can not see a good reason for one,( but thats just me) after all they banned full autos because of their destructive nature. What would one argue to keep assault weapons??

What part of the 2nd Ammendment excludes any weapon that the government has? It was to keep a tyrannical govenment from ruling our lives ever again. You can't do that with a pea shooter, sling shot, rocks and sticks, or harsh words. Gezz a loo folks. This isn't complicated. Right to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! How much plainer can I make it?

 

[locobob]

Long gone are the days where the civilians can own what our military owns - if nothing else the cost is prohibative. I can think of many things i would rather do that to take on anthing armored with even a 50 caliber rifle. As civiialsn we dont have combat jets, helicopters and what not. DO any of you really think you could take on the military and win. We might have a few wins but overall the technology and might of the military would win. We have one thing on our side and that is the beleif that most of the men and women in our military have close ties to the civiiians of this country and would not kill thier own. History has shown that it could go either way but I would like to think this is our saving grace as civilians. SO when we start assuming that the right to own these firearms is going to be up to the job of possibly over throwing our tyrants then I just laugh and think what fools. This is my opinion.

James Ruby

Determined folks with small arms can still be a pretty effective fighting force, just ask the Taliban.

 

[rds801]

That fact that you're considering this questions is what (I suspect) is upsetting a lot of the responders.

What you're basically asking is "why do we NEED this type of weapon".

First, fully auto's are not illegal... in any way. They're legal to own, and they're legal to use. Sure there are restrictions on who can own one, and how they can use it. But the same is true for my Honda Accord. Some people are not allowed to own cars, and all cars are restricted as to where they can be used. Yet Honda Accords are not considered partially banned, or partially illegal. My honda accord is also fully capable of mass destruction if I so chose to use it for that. Every morning I drive my kids to school past 5 or 6 bus stops each with 7-15 kids waiting right along the road side should I choose to go crazy and mow them down. Would that be the cars fault..... or mine?

You're question on "Need" is a dangerous one: Why do I need a lifted 4x4 pick up? I live on paved road. I drive to work on a paved roads, and my job is on a paved road. Why the "need" to waste all that fuel?

Why do we need cars that cost $200,000? You can't legally go that fast anyway so why have a car that allows someone to drive that recklessly.

Why do BBQ enthusiasts have BBQ pits that cost $10,000 or $20,000.

Besides... we're in a recession, people are hurting and need help, how destructive is it for me to be so wasteful? Obviously, I don't "need" as much money as I make. Maybe I should be reduced only to what I "need" and the rest given to others who are in need.

Some would say my argument doesn't apply, because I'm not comparing things as dangerous as guns.

How about alcohol? Alcohol has no purpose at all other than entertainment. And alcohol related deaths, injuries, and abuses are 3 times what all gun injuries and deaths are combined. Yet... there is no one asking about why we "need" alcohol.

The guy took 4 weapons with him. two pistols, an AR, and a shot gun. The current argument is that we should ban "assault weapons" because they are so dangerous. Well, after they ban assault weapons and the mass shootings continue then the obvious next step is to say, "Obviously that wasn't enough... we need to restrict more".

What if instead he had gone in the school with four 6-shooters.. revolvers like back in the old cowboy days. could he have still not killed 18 kids? What if instead he only killed 7... would that be acceptable?

You see... the "Assault Weapons" ban is just the beginning. They go after them because they're the easiest. They're scary looking, they're "military grade", and people carry lots of "fully loaded magazines" with "high powered bullets" capable for firing "multiple rounds within a minute".

But we all know that won't change a thing and it's just a foot in the door to go after the next, and the next, and the next.

This right here. Wasn't there a time when full-auto firearms were evil? Now those are restricted.
Now it's semi-auto firearms that are evil.

They call 30 round mags high capacity. I call it standard capacity. They want to make 10 rounders standard. If that happens, there will be a mentally ill person that will go out and use the 10 rounders to kill lots of people. Then guess what? 10 rounders will be on the ban list. 5 rounders will be the standard.....because hunters are only allowed to hunt with 5 round mags so it must be OK They are already using that reasoning.

 

[osterr1999]

The best reason to have one is to defend yourself against the tyrannical government that the second amendment was put in place to defend against. Essentially, the citizens need access to the same or similar weapons that the government has, so that we are free to defend ourselves from them should the need arise.

 

[JGRuby]

What part of the 2nd Ammendment excludes any weapon that the government has? It was to keep a tyrannical govenment from ruling our lives ever again. You can't do that with a pea shooter, sling shot, rocks and sticks, or harsh words. Gezz a loo folks. This isn't complicated. Right to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! How much plainer can I make it?

But they are , have been and I foresee well into the future that they will be controlled regardless of wether you, I or anyone else likes it. They are simply not asking us for our opinion.

James Ruby

 

[badclam]

As the shootings have brought to light the assault weapon a gun of choice I was curious outside of the obvious 2nd amendment, why Assault Weapons and What are they good for?

Full Auto's are already banned and anyone ever see a semi auto- with Nato-223 spraying out of a 30 round clip will tell you they are destructive. I live my gun and if a gun lover was a thing I am he, I truly love the pure raw power they have and beauty all the same. I have many weapons and not one assault weapon never have and never will.
I personally for me see no use for them.

Which brings me to the forum question, out of the second amendment right to have arms
Why and what purpose do you see for them or think others should have them. I am not asking to rehash the second
this is a strictly ownership and why even get one ?

Just wondered, it can be a hot topic please try and keep a cool head and think about the question it is a serious one to ask as I can not see a good reason for one,( but thats just me) after all they banned full autos because of their destructive nature. What would one argue to keep assault weapons??

If we are going to take away, degrade, or water down our constitutional rights. I say we start with the first amendment and take away your right to have an opinion that I don't like, and feel might be harmful to my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

 

[Leather]

I wonder how much the 24/7 coverage is helping?

Well it's not helping the families that's for sure.

 

[oknow]

As the shootings have brought to light the assault weapon a gun of choice I was curious outside of the obvious 2nd amendment, why Assault Weapons and What are they good for?

Full Auto's are already banned and anyone ever see a semi auto- with Nato-223 spraying out of a 30 round clip will tell you they are destructive. I live my gun and if a gun lover was a thing I am he, I truly love the pure raw power they have and beauty all the same. I have many weapons and not one assault weapon never have and never will.
I personally for me see no use for them.

Which brings me to the forum question, out of the second amendment right to have arms
Why and what purpose do you see for them or think others should have them. I am not asking to rehash the second
this is a strictly ownership and why even get one ?

Just wondered, it can be a hot topic please try and keep a cool head and think about the question it is a serious one to ask as I can not see a good reason for one,( but thats just me) after all they banned full autos because of their destructive nature. What would one argue to keep assault weapons??

do you have a 10-22 0r any semi auto rifle? if you do then you have a so called (assault weapon) the only thin different from a semi auto and the a w your talking about is the looks it works the same way as any other semi rifle. STOP feeding into the anti's even using the a w word it is a semi auto rifle
:smash: