I am sure that you have many things that you don't "need" but that you merely want. I don't have to justify my legal wants to anybody but my wife.

Further, more people are killed with hands and feet by being beaten and choked than are killed by all so-called assault weapons combined.

It so happens that I do want a Siaga .410 bore shotgun and when I have the money I will get one. Whether you think I need it is irrelevant.

yet blatantly ignores its purpose. You can have a gun for any reason, except the one the founders had in mind.

Maybe he should study up a bit and then reevaluate which amendments he supports.

rant is a futile exercise. It becomes quickly obvious in the article that he knows NOTHING about the guns he is advocating against. Gun grabbers should at least do themselves the favor of researching the subject, its hard to take them seriously while having to wade through so much incorrect information just to get to their point. (on a side note...when you point out to them that they will be more effective if they drop the bs and try substantive, factual arguments...well, you're just a mean 'ol NRA funded gun nut.)

a history teacher taught me that it is impossible/futile to support or oppose what you don't understand. Clearly many proponents of control understand neither the 2A nor the basic RKBA.

These are weapons for the military and SWAT teams.

The individual American citizen was supposed to be America's version of a military. The founders feared the consequences of creating a standing army, and it seems they were very prescient.

is as a check against tyranny, I can't imagine ever needing guns other than ones the potential tyrants say I need.

...and the intelligence to use it wisely. Have you taken a look at the capacity of the US military lately? Tell me really how your guns would stop that kind of firepower. If you want to prevent tyranny, don't vote it into office. your gun ain't gonna stop it.

just thought I would mention it.

Insurgents in Iraq did on our Military couldn't be replicated again if a tyranny ever came about.

As in, they were created out of whatever materials are close at hand. In many cases, the raw materials (explosives) used are actually provided by enemy duds. They never sold IEDs at Iraqi Wal-Marts.

I certainly don't...

Kim Jong Il was elected.

No it's true, there was an election and everything.

that is why I own four of them - my entire family shoots.

Several hundred people, from 16 to 80, are shooting these so called "assault weapons" for the national championships.

The funny part is many bought them directly from the Civilian Marksmanship Program established by Congress. In fact I had them ship three "weapons of war" directly to my office, along with a thousand rounds of 30.06 military surplus ammo.

My favorite was when one of the guys I work with came into my office and asked what was in the ammo cans sitting on the window ledge the day the big white truck brought them. When I told him they had ammo in them, he just laughed so I told them to open one. "Holy crap, they actually have ammo in these ammo cans!"

But, as usual, I'm finding that the majority of these "editorials" exhibit utter and total ignorance of what they are talking about and assume that these are all machine guns or for the more edumacated "submachine guns"

Next week we ban all Chevy's that have racing stripes, bucket seats or dual exhausts. so they can't break any speeding laws.

a gun control advocate ever making an actual substantive argument - average or not.

1.Give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.

It's an AR chambered in th excellent hunting/target .308 winchester caliber (a much more powerful caliber than Holmes' diminutive 5.56mm AR15). Are hunting and target shooting legitimate reasons? Left to right: .308 Winchester (my rifle), .223 Remington (Holmes' AR15), AA Battery (size reference)



My target/hunting rifle:

This is my Colt. Great target rifle.

Just picked it up in June.
[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

This is my target rifle. It's a Frankenstein, made out of about a dozen different companies components.

[IMG][/IMG]

Explain to me why a police officer needs full-auto. Why do they need even a semi-auto AR15?

Do you trust them to always use them only in your best interest?

The rest is just recreation, and I'll take people's lives over your "right" to enjoy that.

between a semi-auto AK clone and a "traditional" semi-auto hunting rifle.

Until then, neither you nor anyone else gets to say what one may or may not own based on 'need'.

The burden is on the government to provide a compelling reason that such should be banned, and it will likely have to pass strict scrutiny- be likely to actually do what it intends, be the least restrictive means to do so, and be narrowly tailored.

Good luck with that.

They use Assault RIFLES...

Their is a difference, "Assault weapons" is a term coined SPECIFICALLY to confuse the issue.. Assault RIFLE is a definition.

They are two very different things. Your average soldier, would LOL and call an "Assault weapon" a toy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons

If you want to restrict something, you should at least KNOW what your wanting to restrict.

or a threaded muzzle, or with a stock that adjusts for length. Most are small- or intermediate-caliber (i.e. .223 Remington, or 7.62x39mm)m

The military doesn't use NFA Title 1 civilian "assault weapons"; they use NFA Title 2 restricted automatic weapons, like M16's and M4's.

I shoot competitively in local rifle matches; practically every rifle in every match is an "assault weapon" by somebody's definition.

It's a rifle, shotgun, or pistol that is semi-automatic (self-loading) in nature, is fed from a detachable magazine, and has too many items from a list of cosmetic or ergonomic features.


If you remove a cosmetic/ergonomic feature or two, it stops being an assault weapon.


So I can have an AR-15 or AK-47 semiautomatic rifle, as long as it has only a pistol grip. If it has a pistol grip and an adjustable buttstock, then it's an assault weapon.





"Assault weapon" was defined to address guns that looked menacing, tactical, police or military issue. California's written 104,000 words on the subject, and it's as confused as ever as gun makers try to satisfy the demands of gun owners with the demands of the state laws. For example, the "bullet button" for AR-15 rifles, which turns them into NOT assault weapons... maybe.

Plenty of legitimate uses. One is competition.

Freedom means not having to justify our choices.

When the second amendment says:

"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."

Who do you think the people will be securing free states from? Other people, right? What kind of weapon should the people use for killing other people in such a military endeavor?

Holmes killed more people with his shotgun than with his "assault rifle"

In close quarters a shotgun is still king. The only thing most shotguns don't have going for them is the recoil, which is a real problem for some people.

Holmes obviously never learned how to reload his shotgun on the fly. This is a very good thing.

The AR15 is an extremely useful little rifle but it's not exactly the fearsome death spewer that some folks would have you believe it is. That's not to say it's not extremely dangerous in the hands of a mentally ill individual or a felon, but it's not the super weapon that the antis would have one believe it is.

Btw...Phoenix Tech makes a nice stock called "Kicklite" for recoil reduction. I have one on my mossberg and it works great.

The AR is so SCARY looking!


And black!



Wait a second... Wouldn't that make banning them a racist hate crime?

according to the founding fathers was our (We The People) last form of defense against a tyrannical government, not for hunting.

And the AR-15 platform in particular is by far the top selling centerfire rifle in the United States, and has been at or near the top of the civilian market since the late 1990's (yeah, it was never banned and has been on the civilian market since 1961; John F. Kennedy owned one).

I'm going to start applying gun grabber logic in other areas of my life.
"Seriously professor, my F is near passing"
"well officer, 65 is near 40"
"why yes potential girlfriend, my ford focus is practically a Porsche. How? well they both come in red"

On the periodic table that is.

but what does need have to do with it?
And what do SMG's have to do with assault weapons? Can someone educate me please?

Average Americans don't "need" computers. NJ legislators poised to act

that "assault weapon" means machine gun? If so, is he wrong? And if he's wrong, does that error undermine his credibility or the relevance of his article?

The point is, weapons that can cause great carnage in a matter of seconds should not be marketed or sold to the general public. You can argue all day over the definition of an "assault weapon", but I think we can all agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

I believe his definition of such is very relevant

So, do you think he knows what an "assault weapon" is in the context of an assault weapon ban?

Do you think it's reasonable to talk about one thing while advocating a ban that describes something entirely different? (Note that this last one is a general question, not specific to guns alone.)

heavy equipment. Those shouldn't be sold to the general public.

I'm sure you agree that there are weapons more powerful than handguns and hunting rifles that should have the same restrictions.

so called "assault weapons" like the AR are often less powerful than what you think of as a hunting rifle. Since no one is talking about repealing the NFA............................................

That shooting sports use to determine what categories guns should be placed in. The first is the .223 the AR uses, the second is the .30-30 that has been around since 1895

Power Factor
Input Data
Bullet Weight: 55.0 gr Caliber: 0.223 in
Muzzle Velocity: 3240.0 ft/s
Output Data
IDPA Power Factor 178200 TSA Power Factor 178200
IPSC Power Factor 178 USPSA Power Factor 178
SASS Power Factor 178.2

Power Factor
Input Data
Bullet Weight: 150.0 gr Caliber: 0.300 in
Muzzle Velocity: 2390.0 ft/s
Output Data
IDPA Power Factor 358500 TSA Power Factor 358500
IPSC Power Factor 358 USPSA Power Factor 358
SASS Power Factor 358.5

At "shall not be infringed."

My fire arms have never been pointed at a fellow human.

[IMG][/IMG]

I don't give a shit what someone else thinks I need or don't need.

what we need or don't need is nobody's business but our own. If I want to spend money on a semi auto rifle, no matter what it looks like, need does not come into the equation, want is my equation.

your right to own one. You're supposed to be a "well-regulated" militia; "well-regulated" means "disciplined"; under some authority that tells you how to conduct yourself. the second amendment doesn't give you a right to to cause anarchy. If the authorities tell you you can't possess an AK-47, then you damn well better suck it up and accept it. We aren't gonna play nice with you if we have any more massacres of innocent people by some sicko who thinks his right to shoot the hell up is superior to our right not to bleed to death at the hands of your fun toys. This is the end of it.

And barely has enough money to buy a decent used car?

I don't know what the opposite of paranoia would be called ("pronoia"?), but you lot certainly show the effects of it...

We gun owners helped put most of them their..

tyrannical much?

I know full well how to conduct myself.

you are the one that needs to "damn well better suck it up and accept it"

I believe you posted one of the most nasty, condescending posts on DU that I have ever read.

Somehow, I think not.

* You don't know what you're talking about. "Well regulated" did not mean "controlled."
* Nobody is claiming any right to murder or "cause anarchy."
* The political will required to do what you're threatening does not currently exist and you sure as hell can't do it on your own so you'll forgive us as we snort derisively and go about our business.

of your next pronouncement of what I need. Maybe this Roland Martin and Mayor Bloomberg can lock up all the AK-47s with those dangerous 20 oz sodas.

So how do I get on the list of sanctimonious twits who get to decide what other people need?

The type of logic you are using could just as easily be used to justify the restriction of other rights. Watch where you tread.

so rather than repeating the same arguments on every thread you can simply say "see thread www.dem . . . ."

For instance things like assault weapon vs assault rifle. Or assault weapon versus a normal rifle. Or the link between guns and crime. Or full versus semi-automatic. Or the notion that well-regulated militia means you have the right to join the army. And so on.


I've noticed a handful of persistent arguments that are always used and easily refuted but are effective and taking attention away from real issues.