PDA

View Full Version : There is no need for "assault weapons"....


sfpcservice
12-18-2012, 4:29 PM
I'm sure we have all heard this one more times than we can count in the last few days. I have been rubbing my two brain cells together and have come up with the following retorts:

Them: no need for aw blah blah but i respect 2a and hunting rights

Us: so you are against all semi automatic rifles and shotguns?

Them: no, just aw's

Us: define what an assault weapon is please

Them: uh.... they are black and look scary.

Us: so you are against owning black rifles?

Anyway, thats sort of how I see the conversations going. Perhaps we can turn this into a strategy thread on dealing with the hi-cap and anti AW talk. If not this one another should be started for that purpose in my opinion.

SactoPlinker
12-18-2012, 4:34 PM
Though fairly apples to oranges, I look at it this way. Pro-gun control says we don't AW or hi-cap mags and they're right, we dont need them, but we have an amendment that says we should be able to have them if we want them. My response is usually do you need a car that can go over 150 mph? No you don't, but its a helluva lot of fun and you want that car just like we want our rifles and pistols. FWIW I like both rifles and fast cars (on a track setting that is :) )

SilverTauron
12-18-2012, 4:34 PM
I'm sure we have all heard this one more times than we can count in the last few days. I have been rubbing my two brain cells together and have come up with the following retorts:

Them: no need for aw blah blah but i respect 2a and hunting rights

Us: so you are against all semi automatic rifles and shotguns?

Them: no, just aw's

Us: define what an assault weapon is please

Them: uh.... they are black and look scary.

Us: so you are against owning black rifles?

Anyway, thats sort of how I see the conversations going. Perhaps we can turn this into a strategy thread on dealing with the hi-cap and anti AW talk. If not this one another should be started for that purpose in my opinion.

The "assault weapon" fixation is a smokescreen. The only reason people delineate between AR15s and Remington 700s is because its culturally unacceptable to oppose hunting in America-so far.


An anti who says the truth-that they want every gun banned and even the police disarmed-will find themselves alone in the room even if other anti's around internally agree with that stance. Its like the radicals in any group-the moderates don't openly support them for fear of social backlash, not because they don't agree with them. Were it socially acceptable to say you want every gun in America banned, that's what the anti's would say. Instead , right now the only brand of guns socially acceptable to bash are the "assault weapons" , so that's what they do.

Harrison_Bergeron
12-18-2012, 4:44 PM
Here's a conversation I think could get some grabbers twisted in their own ideas.

Them: We need to ban assault weapons

Us: Are you going to take them away from law enforcement too?

Them: Of course not.

Us: Why not?

Them: They will need them to stop criminals who have assault weapons.

Us: If there is a ban on assault weapons how will criminals have them? I thought the whole point of the ban was to take them away from criminals.

Them: The criminals aren't just gong to give up their guns.

Us: Then what good is a piece of paper that says guns are illegal?

warbird
12-18-2012, 4:56 PM
i have a question. Many more people are killed in california by speeding cars than guns each year. With a maximum speed limit of 65 MPH why does the state allow cars to be sold that exceed that limit? Why isn't the same insane mentality at the state capitol that is trying to ban guns or require additional licenses to buy guns/ammo working to ban any new car capable of exceeding the 65 MPH speed limit? the new license to buy ammo is nothing more than a new tax and will turn honest citizens into criminals when they go out of state to buy ammo or buy it on the blackmarket that will be created. Right now i stand in a gun store and buy ammo in a safe environment with a clerk who checks my identification. Pretty soon I'll be standing in a back alley buying bootleg ammo next to a murderer and career criminal. Isn't california grand?

Guntech
12-18-2012, 5:01 PM
The "assault weapon" fixation is a smokescreen. The only reason people delineate between AR15s and Remington 700s is because its culturally unacceptable to oppose hunting in America-so far.


An anti who says the truth-that they want every gun banned and even the police disarmed-will find themselves alone in the room even if other anti's around internally agree with that stance. Its like the radicals in any group-the moderates don't openly support them for fear of social backlash, not because they don't agree with them. Were it socially acceptable to say you want every gun in America banned, that's what the anti's would say. Instead , right now the only brand of guns socially acceptable to bash are the "assault weapons" , so that's what they do.

Haven't you heard it has been upgraded from assault weapon to Murder Weapon. Guns can apparently plot against people and plan attacks now.

They think that by targeting only "assault weapons" or "weapons of mass destruction" or "murder weapons" or "high capacity clips" and saying they support hunters rights, they wont alienate hunters but instead they hope hunters will think "I dont use any of those so I dont care if they ban them". This is a foolish way of thinking and a stone cast at any of us should be received as a stone cast at all of us.

UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL

SilverTauron
12-18-2012, 5:03 PM
i have a question. Many more people are killed in california by speeding cars than guns each year. With a maximum speed limit of 65 MPH why does the state allow cars to be sold that exceed that limit? Why isn't the same insane mentality at the state capitol that is trying to ban guns or require additional licenses to buy guns/ammo working to ban any new car capable of exceeding the 65 MPH speed limit?

Because more people buy and use cars then those who buy and shoot guns.

Don't worry, they'll get around to autos soon enough. Once your guns and knives are history, they'll carbon tax that '63 Stingray Corvette right out of your garage.

DenaliPark
12-18-2012, 5:08 PM
Because more people buy and use cars then those who buy and shoot guns.

Don't worry, they'll get around to autos soon enough. Once your guns and knives are history, they'll carbon tax that '63 Stingray Corvette right out of your garage.

Really? There are over 300,000,000 cars in the USA?

Guntech
12-18-2012, 5:08 PM
Because more people buy and use cars then those who buy and shoot guns.

Don't worry, they'll get around to autos soon enough. Once your guns and knives are history, they'll carbon tax that '63 Stingray Corvette right out of your garage.

This

HowardW56
12-18-2012, 5:13 PM
I'm sure we have all heard this one more times than we can count in the last few days. I have been rubbing my two brain cells together and have come up with the following retorts:

Them: no need for aw blah blah but i respect 2a and hunting rights

Us: so you are against all semi automatic rifles and shotguns?

Them: no, just aw's

Us: define what an assault weapon is please

Them: uh.... they are black and look scary.

Us: so you are against owning black rifles?

Anyway, thats sort of how I see the conversations going. Perhaps we can turn this into a strategy thread on dealing with the hi-cap and anti AW talk. If not this one another should be started for that purpose in my opinion.

I respond to people that know nothing and want to ban assault weapons by sending this link...

ysf8x477c30

Meplat
12-18-2012, 5:22 PM
Really? There are over 300,000,000 cars in the USA?

There are more guns than cars.

Mr.1904
12-18-2012, 5:40 PM
The term "assault weapon" is usually considered a select fire rifle of medium caliber that has a detachable magazine correct?

Well, considering we don't really even have detachable magazines and 99% of rifles in CA are semi auto i don't see why this is still an issue here in CA.

It really is beating a dead horse and just reinforces the thought that they really are just trying to grab your guns.

12voltguy
12-18-2012, 5:46 PM
evEg1VNfX3o

SilverTauron
12-18-2012, 5:52 PM
Really? There are over 300,000,000 cars in the USA?

I said buy AND use. Most of us aren't lucky enough to shoot a gun nearly as often as we drive our cars, and the firearms are not equally distributed across the country like cars are. Thus, greater exposure of cars to the population compared to gun. Most everyone in Chicago and LA metro areas are at least passingly familiar with driving. Very few people by comparison actually have hands on time shooting, especially "evil" guns like ARs and AKs. Though based on Feinstein's latest press release as of 17 December, she's going after magazine fed handguns too this time.

wjc
12-18-2012, 6:11 PM
The term "assault weapon" is usually considered a select fire rifle of medium caliber that has a detachable magazine correct?

Well, considering we don't really even have detachable magazines and 99% of rifles in CA are semi auto i don't see why this is still an issue here in CA.

It really is beating a dead horse and just reinforces the thought that they really are just trying to grab your guns.

The end game is to ban all guns that can be a threat to them. This is just an incremental step toward that goal.

grambo
12-18-2012, 8:13 PM
Most of us will have this discussion with friends/family over the holidays so I've been thinking about this a bit recently. A good argument attempts to get the person to understand your perspective. Since most antis don't own AWs or anything else, this is a bit difficult, but try this in a festive holiday setting:

Them: no need for aw blah blah but i respect 2a and hunting rights

Us: Can we agree that this discussion should really be ONLY about stopping the taking of innocent lives?

Them: Yes, of course

Us: Did you know that there are ~10k deaths from drunk driving in the US every year and that this is about the same number as firearm HOMICIDES (~11k/year in US)?

Them: No, I didn't know that.

Us: I'd like you to consider what regulations you are willing to accept to save the innocent lives lost by drunk driving, infants and young children included. We can stop this senseless tragedy by banning alcohol. Are you OK with this?

Them: No, that's ridiculous.

Us: Can you begin to understand how a gun owner might feel right now?

Them: Ummmm...

Us: How about if we just ban hard alcohol?

Them: But that's different.

Us: Really, how is it different?

Them: Well, assault weapons are designed to kill people!

Us: Well, hard alcohol will get one drunk much faster than beer or wine, so are you OK with banning hard alcohol?

If they try to divert the discussion, remind them they agreed the discussion was really ONLY about stopping the taking of innocent lives, and you want them to think about and answer your questions.

Sorry for the long post, but the analogy is a pretty striking one. Of course this assumes that you have a rational person to debate with (and that they drink alcohol, although you might not want to do this when they're drunk:facepalm:). You can even throw in the classic cliches if you'd like: "so do cars kill, or drunk drivers who hit people with them?"

Remember, my figures are for firearm HOMICIDES, not overall deaths (most of which are suicides). I think what it comes down to is most antis just don't like guns (especially AWs), and this should become pretty apparent in a well constructed argument.

huntercf
12-18-2012, 8:15 PM
Them: You don't need an assault rifle.
Me: Your correct, I need several assault rifles.
Them: That's not what I meant.
Me: What did you mean?
Them: You don't need them for hunting.
Me: I might.
Them: No one needs a gun that can shoot that many bullets.
Me: You don't need free speech and the right to vote.
Them: They are my rights.
Me: Well you advocating taking away my rights because you say I don't "need" something, so I am advocating taking away your rights because I feel you are too stupid to exercise your rights.
Them: ...crickets...

huntercf
12-18-2012, 8:16 PM
Them: You don't need an assault rifle.
Me: Your correct, I need several assault rifles.
Them: That's not what I meant.
Me: What did you mean?
Them: You don't need them for hunting.
Me: I might.
Them: No one needs a gun that can shoot that many bullets.
Me: You don't need free speech and the right to vote.
Them: They are my rights.
Me: Well you advocating taking away my rights because you say I don't "need" something, so I am advocating taking away your rights because I feel you are too stupid to exercise your rights.
Them: ...crickets...

Sakiri
12-18-2012, 8:21 PM
Those antis will eventually run out of things to be against.

Then what? I can only dream of the anguish that afflicts them when they have nothing to argue against.

ECG_88
12-18-2012, 8:33 PM
I just checked the CDC numbers for 2010. 31,000 overall gun deaths, 18,000 suicides, 2,000 accidents, and 11,000 homicides. Obviously all numbers are rounded off for easy reading.

mattmattmatt
12-18-2012, 8:47 PM
Someone asked me on my facebook, and I responded with:

I use my AR-15 for home defense and marksmanship competitions. Its configurability and ergonomics are better compared to other firearms, allowing the stock and grip size to be adjusted to fit me. They are modular and have a simple disassembly process, allowing easy replacement and cleaning of parts. I prefer to use my AR for home defense since I can shoot it more accurately than my handguns. The .223 round it fires also has less of a chance to over penetrate my walls and threaten others. See http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/results.html

An AR-15 can be made very accurate, and it utilizes an integrated buffer to reduce recoil. The cartridge it fires is small enough so that it doesn't beat up the shoulder after shooting it for a while. All of these are very desirable features for a rifle, and make it perfect for target shooting\competitions\home defense.

I don't understand the desire to further regulate them since they are the least used murder weapon, even behind hands/feet
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

There is no breakdown between "hunting" rifles and AR/AK rifles.

NoHeavyHitter
12-18-2012, 8:52 PM
Thankfully, we have a bill of rights and not some "bill of needs"...:rolleyes:

SonoftheRepublic
12-18-2012, 8:54 PM
_"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they
should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of
independence from ANY who might ATTEMPT to ABUSE THEM, which would
include their own government.”
- George Washington - Speech of Jan. 7, 1790,
in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790

Gosh-gollee-gee . . . I wonder what type of gun the father of our country would say is THE MOST IMPORTANT KIND OF GUN FOR AMERICANS TO KEEP AND BEAR . . .???

Think about it . . . I'm sure you'll come up with something

Rossi357
12-18-2012, 10:17 PM
I respond to people that know nothing and want to ban assault weapons by sending this link...

ysf8x477c30

This guy got drumed out of law enforcement because of this video.

unusedusername
12-18-2012, 11:26 PM
Them: uh.... they are black and look scary.


Me: Are you a racist?

wjc
12-18-2012, 11:35 PM
Them: You don't need an assault rifle.
Me: Your correct, I need several assault rifles.
Them: That's not what I meant.
Me: What did you mean?
Them: You don't need them for hunting.
Me: I might.
Them: No one needs a gun that can shoot that many bullets.
Me: You don't need free speech and the right to vote.
Them: They are my rights.
Me: Well you advocating taking away my rights because you say I don't "need" something, so I am advocating taking away your rights because I feel you are too stupid to exercise your rights.
Them: ...crickets...

You are my hero. Well played, sir!

cdtx2001
12-19-2012, 4:32 AM
Them: You don't need an assault rifle.
Me: Your correct, I need several assault rifles.
Them: That's not what I meant.
Me: What did you mean?
Them: You don't need them for hunting.
Me: I might.
Them: No one needs a gun that can shoot that many bullets.
Me: You don't need free speech and the right to vote.
Them: They are my rights.
Me: Well you advocating taking away my rights because you say I don't "need" something, so I am advocating taking away your rights because I feel you are too stupid to exercise your rights.
Them: ...crickets...

Ooooohh good one. I'm gonna use this Jedi mind trick on the next anti I encounter.

Regulus
12-19-2012, 5:05 AM
evEg1VNfX3o

Thank you Chuck Woolery.

CAGLS
12-19-2012, 5:21 AM
What gets me is why there is not a third party weapons expert to refer to when creating these laws to proper differentiate between full auto action being an AW and semi-auto not. Is it not the definition of an assault weapon having a full auto action?

VictorFranko
12-19-2012, 5:50 AM
There is no need for "assault weapons"....


If the question here is "need", then no, we really don't "need" assault weapons.
There are many things we don't "need" in our lives including golf clubs, automobiles, televisions, shopping malls, restaurants, professional sports teams, food processors, cigarettes, Fleshlights, alcohol, Italian loafers, so-forth-and so-on, you get the point.
We have these things because we WANT these things, it has nothing to do with NEED.

About two years ago, after Rep. Giffords was shot by that a**hole Jared Loughner, radio host Peter Tilden asked the question on air, "Who needs a 30 round clip?" Even though he wasn't asking for people to call in, I did and to my surprise, they put me on the air. First I corrected him on the nomenclature, and then explained, like above, that in truth, nobody "needs" a 30 round magazine, just as nobody "really" needs golf clubs.
He kept me on the phone for about 12 minutes (it seemed like forever to me as I was nervous as heck).
I explained that as a citizen of this planet, I have the right to own or not own anything of my choosing. I did get through to him using this logic. I also assured him that these types of incidences appalled law-abiding gun owners every bit as much, if not more than the average citizen.
After hanging up, he commented how nice it was that someone who knew what they were talking about had taken the time to call in and explain things.
A few here on CG's heard the broadcast and said it came off well.

Of course, using this logic will not work on a staunch, die-hard liberal, because they don't care about facts or truth.

ptoguy2002
12-19-2012, 6:04 AM
This guy got drumed out of law enforcement because of this video.

Interesting. Any details?

tahoetarga
12-19-2012, 6:08 AM
_"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they
should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of
independence from ANY who might ATTEMPT to ABUSE THEM, which would
include their own government.”
- George Washington - Speech of Jan. 7, 1790,
in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790

Gosh-gollee-gee . . . I wonder what type of gun the father of our country would say is THE MOST IMPORTANT KIND OF GUN FOR AMERICANS TO KEEP AND BEAR . . .???

Think about it . . . I'm sure you'll come up with something


Unfortunately, the above is not factually correct. The actual quote is:

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies."

Here is his full speech:

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=324

HowardW56
12-19-2012, 6:22 AM
This guy got drumed out of law enforcement because of this video.

Because they didn't like the content; clear, logically presented, and understandable for the masses...

Meplat
12-19-2012, 6:37 AM
The term "assault weapon" is usually considered a select fire rifle of medium caliber that has a detachable magazine correct?

Well, considering we don't really even have detachable magazines and 99% of rifles in CA are semi auto i don't see why this is still an issue here in CA.

It really is beating a dead horse and just reinforces the thought that they really are just trying to grab your guns.

You are discribing an Assault Rifle. The antis have taken the designation of a univerisally accepted, and specifically definable object, and morphed it into the neblus term “Assautl Weapon”, like “saterday night specdial”, it has no solid definition except what they want it to have at the time.

a1fabweld
12-19-2012, 6:40 AM
That's correct. There is no need for "Assault Weapons". None of my guns are "Assault Weapons" because they've never been used in an "Assault". They are simply sports equipment. I use them for the sport of putting projectiles in a paper target, similar to how NBA players "Shoot" a basketball into a basketball hoop. Although my fists could technically be considered "Assault Weapons" because I have, in the past, used them to injure someone in defense.

Mitch
12-19-2012, 6:40 AM
Most of the sample conversations posted in this thread seem to be more about scoring points than educating people.

Figure out what you are trying to achieve before you engage someone in a discussion.

Here's my side of a discussion I had this week (on a mountain climbing forum, of all places):

Okay, [Angry Dude], I'm here to help. Like so many folks, you don't seem to know that much about firearms or firearms laws, just what you see on the teevee, for the most part. I am extremely familiar with them. I have to be.

One of the weapons used in the CO shooting was an assault weapon (AR-15). Those weapons should be banned.

This is a big one. I'll start with a rhetorical question: What is an "assault weapon?" As a matter of fact, "assault weapon" is a legal term. Since there is no assault weapon law in Colorado, there are no assault weapons there . There are assault weapons in California, and except for grandfathered specimens that had to be registered prior to 2000 and cannot be legally sold or transferred, even upon death, they are already banned. But Holmes could not have been using an assault weapon because there simply are none in Colorado.

Perhaps you are confusing "assault weapon" with "assault rifle." It is a common mistake. An "assault rifle" is a lightweight, select-fire rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge (that is, smaller and less powerful than the traditional "battle cartridge" or hunting round) that uses detachable magazines. Assault rifles can be legally possessed in most US states, but only after extensive background checks by the ATF, endorsements by local law enforcement and payment of a tax stamp. Moreover, the manufacture or sale of select-fire weapons for sale to civilians was banned by legislation signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, which means they aren't making any more of them. If you are legally qualified to purchase an assault rifle, you will also need at least $10,000 or so just to buy it. As you can imagine, this is primarily a rich man's toy, or the object of a true aficionado or collector.

The US military fields a couple of assault rifle designs, and the AR-15 is the semi-automatic (not select-fire or full auto) civilian version of the M16 assault rifle. But it is not an assault rifle, due to this crucial difference: it is not capable of fully automatic fire.

I'm going to tell you something that might surprise you: today the AR-15 is by far the most common centerfire rifle design in America. In recent years, AR-15s have been outselling other patterns by a wide margin. Every major rifle maker in America (except Marlin) now produces a variant, or has announced its intentions to do so (Savage is a latecomer).

In addition to the typical AR-15 manufacturers (Armalite, DPMS, etc), Remington makes one:

http://www.americanhunter.org/Webcontent/gallery/102/2031Remington-R-15-450_Bushmaster_G.jpg

Smith & Wesson (a handgun company) makes several:

http://www.impactguns.com/data/default/images/catalog/535/022188145663.jpg

Mossberg makes one:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Screen-shot-2011-07-24-at-7.27.07-AM.png

Even Ruger makes one:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/468l.jpg

These rifles are [i]ubiquitous at shooting ranges and in gun stores. The only reason you don't know that is because you probably don't spend much time at shooting ranges or gun stores. They started becoming popular as a result of the 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban," before which the AR-15 was sort of an exotic design, most popular with military veterans (so be careful what you wish for). Their light weight a low recoil makes them popular with women and children:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7124/7726392272_21716c2f64_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonov/7726392272/)

Millions of Americans legally possess AR-15s without harming anyone. In fact, according to the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls), rifles of any kind are used in only 4% of American homicides! Fists and feet kill more!

What is so special about the AR-15? By what reasoning, then, should it be banned?

BTW, this is a photo of my favorite rifle in my (sizable) personal collection

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/150/351717236_0e669084a8_z.jpg?zz=1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonov/351717236/)

That is an M1 rifle, which was adopted as the US military's standard service rifle in the 1930s and remained so until it was superseded by the M14 in 1957. It is semi-automatic, can be reloaded as quickly as any assault rifle, and chambers a .30-'06 round that can pass through cement blocks and has twice the effective range of the AR-15's 5.56mm. It is a far more deadly firearm than the AR-15. And yet, no one ever (seriously) talks about banning the M1. I wonder why? Perhaps it is the wooden stock.

An interesting factoid, BTW, about the Colorado shooting. Holmes was armed with an AR-15, a pistol and a shotgun. The AR-15 jammed after firing fewer than 30 rounds (as they are wont to do in the hands of the inexperienced). Most of the killings seem to have been committed with the handgun. Handguns and shotguns are just as deadly as AR-15s. I'm not really sure where this idea that AR-15s are hugely dangerous has come from.

A point I failed to emphasize is that these rifles are as common as Chevrolets, maybe more common. And that banning them because one was used in an attack is as sensible as banning Chevrolets because one was used as a bank heist getaway car.

Angry Dude no longer mentioned the AR-15 after that (he moved on to background checks). I don't know whether I convinced him or he just decided he was out of his depth, But surely other people reading that post got a quick education on AR-15s and assault weapons, much more than they would have got from a tit-for-tat online pissing match.

Meplat
12-19-2012, 7:00 AM
I like to compare it to the first ammendment protection of speech. That has been expanded to the point that it covers pissing on a crusifx in a bottle. The founders could never have invishioned radio, TV, or instant global satilite communication. You don’t need satelite TV.


Them: You don't need an assault rifle.
Me: Your correct, I need several assault rifles.
Them: That's not what I meant.
Me: What did you mean?
Them: You don't need them for hunting.
Me: I might.
Them: No one needs a gun that can shoot that many bullets.
Me: You don't need free speech and the right to vote.
Them: They are my rights.
Me: Well you advocating taking away my rights because you say I don't "need" something, so I am advocating taking away your rights because I feel you are too stupid to exercise your rights.
Them: ...crickets...

Manolito
12-19-2012, 7:00 AM
I would only point out the first amendment. Anything more than a #2 pencil is overkill. Pencils and free speech don't kill? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/erin-gallagher-irish-teen-commits-suicide-battle-cyberbullying_n_2040850.html

If we limited the use of high speed internet this yong man may still be alive. The list of people being harmed by the first is long and sorted.

I am going to wait and see what goes forward and spend my time taking action on those things. American people are funny they may say enough Government over this issue.

Bill

mt4design
12-19-2012, 7:09 AM
Nothing I own has ever assaulted anyone or any thing. I have sporting arms the same way a golfer has clubs, a baseball player has bats or a bow hunter has arrows.

The move toward "modifying" the Second Amendment is nothing short of criminal in itself.

The fact is that banning items legally purchased and making such possession "criminal" in turn makes millions of law abiding citizens instant criminals.

If that is the case, then it is crystal clear just how thoughtful Thomas Jefferson was when he opined,

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

That the Second Amendment is not about hunting, or granting rights to a collective such as a militia. The Second Amendment is about individuals standing together to protect that which cannot be separated from them... and that is Liberty.

There is no ambiguity in Jefferson's feelings about this matter and the Second Amendment.

"Taken from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Smith

Paris, November 13, 1787

DEAR SIR, -- [...]

Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.

God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.

If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

[...]"

It was evil, pure and simple, that made that insane boy kill his mother (the forgotten victim), take her weapons and then force himself in to that school to commit the atrocities he did in a "gun free zone".

If one armed teacher, or one armed citizen, or one armed LEO, had been there then perhaps the ability of that bastard to pull the trigger eleven times in to one small boy would have not been possible.

We should, at a minimum, take the opportunity to balance the odds and ensure we can protect our God given right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness against such madness.

To disarm us is nothing short of criminal in itself.

Mike

a1c
12-19-2012, 7:19 AM
I tell people the AR is the most popular platform for service and match rifle competitions. I tell them is a very popular hunting configuration for varmint and pigs as well.

I tell them no one "needs" Porsches or street bikes with 1000cc either, and that most cars sold go far above posted speed limits.

Yet I don't go around telling Porsche drivers or Aprilia riders that they don't need a racing machine to go to the mall.

SilverTauron
12-19-2012, 7:29 AM
I tell people the AR is the most popular platform for service and match rifle competitions. I tell them is a very popular hunting configuration for varmint and pigs as well.

I tell them no one "needs" Porsches or street bikes with 1000cc either, and that most cars sold go far above posted speed limits.

Yet I don't go around telling Porsche drivers or Aprilia riders that they don't need a racing machine to go to the mall.

That's next on the agenda. Once guns and weapons are outlawed, the next item on the list are automobiles. In Europe there's taxes on engine size, curb weight, fuel economy, and on the gas itself. Based on what the liberals I know think of cars, that'll be The Next Big Campaign if they can disarm America successfully.

a1c
12-19-2012, 7:32 AM
That's next on the agenda. Once guns and weapons are outlawed, the next item on the list are automobiles. In Europe there's taxes on engine size, curb weight, fuel economy, and on the gas itself. Based on what the liberals I know think of cars, that'll be The Next Big Campaign if they can disarm America successfully.

It proceeds from a similar thinking, yes.

It's the "I can live without this so you should too" mentality.

That's one of the things I don't miss about Europe, where I grew up. I'm socially liberal, but I also have a strong libertarian streak. My thinking is - if it doesn't impact you, let me live my life however I want.

Unfortunately there always are people feeling threatened by things they are not familiar with.

advocatusdiaboli
12-19-2012, 11:44 AM
Pro-gun control says we don't [need sic sicAW or hi-cap mags and they're right, we dont need them

I strongly disagree with your line of argument: no one _needs_ anything until circumstances dictate they need it. A seat belt, air bag, fire extinguisher, alarm, taser, bear pepper spray, emergency food and water, generator for power, locked gun safe, or any firearm. What we do need is preparation to mitigate risks. I want a semi-auto long gun available to defend my property and family and I cannot predict sufficient ammunition, so I want enough for any circumstance scenarios. Enough said.