Arguments FOR private possession of assault weapons

[linj2fly]

I need your collective help....

Here is the rhetorical question that often stumps me...

Why does anyone NEED an assault weapon to defend themselves?

Now explain why this Is necessary WITHOUT making any reference to protecting against tyranny.

(I am pro gun rights; I am asking this because I don't know enough about various guns to answer the question). To me my single action revolver is just as lethal as my 9mm. Gun control advocates argue that assault weapons make for a higher body count...

So why do I need my semi autos (pretend govt will always play nice), and what's ur definition of assault weapon (does this everything that's not a single action?)

[Fairminded]

The popular argument for assault weapons is the example of the shop owner during a riot who defended his store against dozens of rioters wanting to break in and steal his possessions. What weapon do you think he used?

Another argument is that people miss, especially in tense situations and especially if they're not conditioned for violence against even those threatening them. There are plenty of stories of people in self defense situations emptying a clip and never hitting their target. Better guns are more forgiving on worse shooters, making it more possible to do what you have to do to defend yourself. And whether it's a single shot .22 or an automatic shotgun with a 60 round drum, a responsible owner will use it responsibly, and a criminal will use it to harm others. Why not let responsible owners have the best weapons they can afford to defend themselves and their loved ones?

[Benjamin_LK]

I need your collective help....

Here is the rhetorical question that often stumps me...

Why does anyone NEED an assault weapon to defend themselves?

Now explain why this Is necessary WITHOUT making any reference to protecting against tyranny.

(I am pro gun rights; I am asking this because I don't know enough about various guns to answer the question). To me my single action revolver is just as lethal as my 9mm. Gun control advocates argue that assault weapons make for a higher body count...

So why do I need my semi autos (pretend govt will always play nice), and what's ur definition of assault weapon (does this everything that's not a single action?)

It's more than just a case of protection against a tyrannical government, it's more of a case, at least for legal purposes of justifying the individual in protection of home, family, and self, from attack by common thugs, if you really tried to defend your "home" against force of government, well, a few special forces with a sniper on the team wouldn't feel the least bit afraid.

I would feel concerned that a shotgun, such as the 12-gauge pump action, could be considered an assault weapon for the sheer knockdown power and spread which it possesses.

[mes5464]

Because no one has the right to decide for you what you need.

[RaVaN]

The major reason is that it is our civic duty to be well armed.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."(2nd amendment)

This isn't about tyranny, but rather our duty to defend and protect our state and community. The 2nd amendment was never about hunting, but about being ready to rise up in the defense of our nation and our communities. This is not a vigilante issue either. It is something that for the better part of our Nation's history has been important and has been growing more important over the past few years.. Without access to those arms that allow for protection and security, you end up at the mercy of those that will have better weapons with intent to do you harm. I am a pretty firm believer that it is every person's duty as an American to own a firearm and be prepared to use it. The rights outlined in the Constitution don't just say what you get, but what is expected of you.

[lundbaek]

One of my former associates of years ago was positioned on the turret of a tank when an enemy soldier stepped out alongside from the brush maybe 20 yards away and pointed a machine pistol at him. The gun failed to fire and as the enemy soldier struggled to clear the jam or whatever, my associate drew his .45 1911A1 and emptied at the enemy emeny soldier, missing every shot, and then threw the pistol at the enemy, who then ran in front of the tank where the gunner got him with a mounted machine gun. A fully loaded .45 M3 "grease gun" or similar would have been more effective in that situation.

[bobhenstra]

20 yards- and missed every shot, hmmm-- This guy did get out of the Army--right???

[Col. Flagg]

An argument for private possession of an assault weapon?

[linj2fly]

Thank you for your quick replies, everyone They have all been helpful to me. I was looking for concrete examples as well as philosophical, and you've delivered.

Because no one has the right to decide for you what you need.

Thank you Mes. I found this comment on one of Ben Swann's videos:

"Need" is never a metric used to determine the exercise of a right.

"Need", in this regard, is an artificial value judgment imposed by one person on another. In other words: Tyranny.

You do not get to determine what I need any more than I get to determine what you need. The list of items we possess, and actions we indulge in, that are "un-needed" and potentially (or even demonstrably) dangerous is endless.

A freedom to choose things outside of our "needs" is what it means to have self-determination and freedom. Unless someone's exercise of that choice directly infringes on another's freedom it should not be a consideration of the State or any other person what that choice may be.

"Need" is not the justification I must make to live my life. (soldier and facebook poster)

[lundbaek]

For some people in some situations, spray and pray is the only way.

[Benjamin Harrison]

So when we are invaded by the Chinese and or the Russians what would you want to use to defend yourself? Have fun with your single action.

[scottja]

I see a need to be able to meet force with force.
I should be able to have access to the same type of weapons might be used against me.

I volunteer with the local Sheriff, and many years ago, we were authorized only handguns for duty carry. In response to the potential for threats, our baseline qualification requirements has risen. At this point we are required to maintain skills in handgun and shotgun, and a Rifle is strongly recommended for volunteers who work in the field with a deputy.
We used to practice that firearms were for defense only. Now we are training more aggressive, offensive, more military style tactics, and movement, and firing drills.
Local law enforcement has recognized the need to up the level of skill and force.
I use the same logic on a personal level, I need to be prepared for the threats that may present themselves in my community.

[Tribunal]

Simple! Private possession of assault weapons (rifles and shotguns) are important because the bad guys have possession of assault weapons. If you attempt to defend yourself or another person with a pistol and the bad guy has an assault rifle you will be at a serious tactical dis-advantage. I have a feeling you will lose.

Also, there is a response time of several minutes before law enforcement can respond to your cries for help that a bad guy is shooting you with an assault weapon. While you are waiting for the brave and highly paid boys and girls in blue to save you from the bad guys would you rather defend yourself with a phone, a pistol, a shotgun, or a fellow assault rifle?

There is no possible law, system, or incentive, that could rid bad people of their weapons, regardless if the weapon is a pistol, shotgun, or rifle. So, until the world is free of bad people I would highly recommend good people possess assault weapons.

[ktg]

Who says I have to have a 'need?' If I want one, tell me why I shouldn't be able to own one.

[Benjamin Harrison]

:ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymhug: :ymhug: :ymhug: :ymhug: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause:

[RaVaN]

I really want people to understand this, since it seems that many people are not understanding the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment outlines the duty, the right, and the reason why having and bearing effective weapons is part of our constitution. The laws that constitute gun control are unconstitutional. This was true for the Brady bill and for any state laws that institute gun control. If the need for the 2nd amendment has passed, there are processes for removing the 2nd amendment constitutionally and that is what needs to be done, instead of the tearing down of the constitution that has been taking place.

It's a duty to be well armed and well trained, to be prepared to defend and protect the security of the state. That is the importance of the 2nd amendment. Claiming that it was to defend against your own government is not the main reason, nor is the ability to just own guns. The right and duty are inseparable.

For the past 50 years or more, the real meaning of the 2nd amendment has been constantly glossed over and ignored. This only creates confusion and allows the constitution to be circumvented. This has been true for many parts of the constitution and it is not just a recent thing.

[jeanpierre]

So much for preaching to the choir. You would do well to be able to effectively convince people who themselves do not keep a gun and do not want to have a gun and do not understand the advisability of having a gun. The media of course is on their side, so what they see, hear, and read is calculated to present only a bad image of guns and gun owners. And you may have senators and a representative in Congress who, like at least one of my senators, is a closet globalist, and will ultimately support gun prohibition regardless of any mass effort to win him/her over.

[lundbaek]

Many of you may not be aware of Mitt Romney's encouragement of the misnamed "assault weapons" ban and the government-aided determination of what weapons can be owned by whom once having procured government permission. That should not be looked upon in any other way than infringement on the right to bear arms.

Romney "is a supporter of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Mitt also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms." Romney Campaign statement, published in the Deseret News, September 1, 2002

“The candidate (Mitt Romney) reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban contained in Congress' crime bill, and the Brady law”(Boston Herald, August 1, 1994)

Mitt Romney has stated in past campaigns that he is a proponent of gun control and fully supports a ban on assault weapons. He enacted a ban in Massachusetts on many so called "military style assault weapons." Romney stated, "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."


.

[ktg]

[mes5464]

http://youtu.be/igerQd0dpHY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[lundbaek]

I've been looking for that statement by Ezra Taft Benson. Thank you, KTG.

[linj2fly]

So much for preaching to the choir. You would do well to be able to effectively convince people who themselves do not keep a gun and do not want to have a gun and do not understand the advisability of having a gun. The media of course is on their side, so what they see, hear, and read is calculated to present only a bad image of guns and gun owners. And you may have senators and a representative in Congress who, like at least one of my senators, is a closet globalist, and will ultimately support gun prohibition regardless of any mass effort to win him/her over.

Thank you, jeanpierre. That is my purpose, as the mindset you have described is what I am responding to outside this forum. They have already heard so many of the pro-gun rights/2nd amendment arguments and are still unconvinced. They differ on their interpretations of said amendment, among other things. They say I need to learn to 'compromise.' (To me the word 'infringe' leaves no room for 'compromise.')To effectively convince these people is, indeed, the challenge.

[Benjamin Harrison]

All about matching force, and having an equal ground to stand on as sovereign citizens, with what is available to the military, whether that be a foreign military or our own, and to protect us from the gooberment.

[moonwhim]

Regarding Gun Control: What is an “Assault Rifle?”
Earl Griffin
Infowars.com
December 22, 2012
I am more familiar with firearms than the average person. I sold them for a living for several years. I worked as a Peace Officer. I have trained on many firing ranges under the tutelage of men and woman whose instruction was of great value. I grew up hunting and shooting relationally with my late father and with my granddad. I have had an opportunity to become intimately familiar with the function and workings of a wide variety of firearms.

The AR15 is made of modern materials and because of that its detractors like to say it is something that it is not.
There is a falsehood being perpetrated upon the public. You see an “Assault Rifle,” has what is known as a selector switch. This switch allows the shooter to change the weapons function from semi automatic (like a hunting gun) to rapid fire or in some cases auto fire. Rapid fire allows the weapon to fire a burst of three rounds. Auto fire allows it to continue to fire so long as the trigger is depressed.

This is important: An AR15 is NOT an “Assault Rifle.”

It’s Military counterpart, the M16 IS an “Assault Rifle.”

The AR15 is made of modern materials and because of that its detractors like to say it is something that it is not. The AR15 is NOT an “Assault Rifle.”

The term “Assault Rifle,” is a value loaded term much like “Terrorism,” Those who wish to manipulate public sentiment like to use these kinds of terms to sway the opinions of those who don’t really know much about the topic but who love their families and want things to get “better.”

Better often means a further roll back of our Constitutional freedoms. Rolling back freedom is never better.

Here is something to think about: The AR15 is just another semi automatic firearm, much like a 12 gauge shotgun used for bird hunting or a semi automatic hunting rifle used for deer. It is not at all unlike a boy’s .22 caliber rifle used for squirrel or rabbit hunting.

The big difference is that it is made of modern materials instead of wood. If you allow the proponents of gun control to describe every semi automatic rifle (and shotguns – it is the same action) then the next step in this nefarious exercise will be to ban ALL semi automatic rifles and shotguns – that means your hunting weapons. It also means your family heirlooms passed down from granddad or dad.

In conclusion let me repeat: The AR15 is just another semi automatic rifle with a fancy stock made of modern materials. It is not a “Machine Gun,” or an “Assault Rifle.” No amount of describing it this way will change this.

People who use those terms either don’t know what an “Assault Rifle” really is or they are perpetrating a mean spirited falsehood designed ultimately to rob you of your 2nd Amendment rights.

Do your own homework. Do your own thinking. Don’t get carried away by emotion as doing so makes it easier for others to exert control over you.

Protect every word of the Constitution. Stand firm against those who would see your rights curtailed. They will not be satisfied until there is no Second Amendment.

This post first appeared on Earl Griffin’s blog, Barking Window.



URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/regarding-gun-c ... ult-rifle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[lundbaek]

Obama said very recently that if Congress does not enact the gun control legislation he wants he will by-pass Congress. Back in 1976-1977 that was tried in Massachusetts and it nearly worked. It was put to a vote on the November 1976 ballot if all handguns would be banned except for LEO and military. It was beaten way more that 2 - 1, so the anti-gunners tried the end run and somehow it nearly worked. I don't recall the details because we were living in England 1976-1978, but I remember voting absentee and then calling my uncle to find out the results. Also, the PTB can still keep on staging massacares as long as it takes. Still even now too few people would believe the government would do such a thing, or even believe the Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbour (and Hickham Field), the Tonkin Gulf, OKC, TWA 800, Columbine, and 911 were false flag ops. I cannot imagine that the people generally will awaken to what is really happening to them until maybe the 2nd Coming when the hidden things of darkness will be more clearly revealed. Until the "cleansing" I have no hope of our turning back the NWO.