"Why do we need assault weapons?"

[1TexasPatriot]

With all due respect, that's the WRONG question.

The right question is "Why should we be unable to own any firearm we want?". 99.99% of gun owners are good, law-abiding citizens. Why should our rights be infringed in any way?

I've seen several I agree with in this thread, but this one grabbed me.

What I've always pondered is why the insistence on using the phrase "assault rifle/weapon"

Therein lies a negative connotation right from the start. It's like my .264 win mag being referred to as a "deer rifle".....No it isn't

[Marine]

If guns kill people, then pencils mispell words!

[Danteb254]

The problem with disarming law abiding legal gun owners is the criminals we fear with the "assault" weapons don't abide by the gun laws. And I can do more damage with my 3.5" mag 12 gauge 8 round capacity shotgun at close range without aiming than my AR. And more accurate with a hunting(sniper) rifle than my AR. And as far as medium range I have 19 round 9mm very accurate. And also beretta 9mm with a 32 round mag. So if it's capacity then that makes my pistols illegal? Where will they stop when we armed only by sticks rubber band and rocks?

Update. Lost all firearms in boating accident 5 minutes ago. :-)

[Tylerbost33]

Well.. I want an assault rifle cuz their fun to shoot!

[DapperDan]

Please keep this civil as I would like this thread to last. A politically neutral friend of mine is posting on facebook asking why American civilians need assault rifles, and suggesting that they be banned. Here is an excerpt.

"To me, guns serve only two civilian purposes: self-defense and hunting. Why would you need an assault rifle for either of these purposes? And it's not the firepower of the gun that's so important; it's the capacity of the magazine, of which assault rifles generally are larger. This allows for a wider range of damage across targets, say, in shooting sprees. There is a problem, however, in that if someone wants to kill people, they'll find a way to do it. We shouldn't outlaw civilian possession of firearms in general, only those styles which can injure many people at one time."

The last sentence concerns me. What would you say?

Hate to say it again im sure, but your friend is the perfect example of a complete moron. He obviously doesnt know what the hell he is talking about what so ever... i laugh just sitting here thinking about it. High capacity mags are not the problem. It doeant take very long to drop an empty ten round mag and reload with another one compared to just having a 30 round mag.

Maybe we should outlaw buckshot too.... because it holds several projectiles which could hit multiple targets with every round fired. Or maybe nails or ball bearings bc they could be placed in an ied and used as shrapnel.

Best advice I can give you is tell him to read this thread and if he doesn't like it then go back to hugging trees and being a liberal d-bag tool....

[DapperDan]

The problem with disarming law abiding legal gun owners is the criminals we fear with the "assault" weapons don't abide by the gun laws. And I can do more damage with my 3.5" mag 12 gauge 8 round capacity shotgun at close range without aiming than my AR. And more accurate with a hunting(sniper) rifle than my AR. And as far as medium range I have 19 round 9mm very accurate. And also beretta 9mm with a 32 round mag. So if it's capacity then that makes my pistols illegal? Where will they stop when we armed only by sticks rubber band and rocks?

Update. Lost all firearms in boating accident 5 minutes ago. :-)

x2 on the 12 gauge with 3 1/2 in loads. I mean its pretty obvious really.

[Bill]

Ignore him and his friends.

[Kodiakk]

Because the framers of the Constitution were wise enough to recognize that citizens need to be able to do more than hunt and/or shoot recreationally. We need to be able to do more than defend ourselves against criminals, thieves, and attackers. We need to be able to defend ourselves against an oppressive and over-reaching government.....

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.

Thank you, finally someone said the orginal intent of our founders proving us with the right to bear arms. To protect ourselves from a overbearing goverment to keep this nation free.

To the orginal poster. Remeber this during the start of WW2?

'You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.'

[AtTheWall]

REMEMBER 9/11....THE US TO MEXICO BORDER IS NOT SEALED AND NEITHER IS THE USA - CANADA BORDER.

Assault rifles are already in the hands of MILLIONS of TERRORIST & HARDENED CRIMINALS WORLD-WIDE – taking the right to own one in the defense of one’s home, ranch and or community gives the TERRORIST & HEAVILY ARMED CRIMINAL AN ADVANTAGE

Landowners with large tracts of property – with oil & gas operations , near the Mexican border. These landowners need the additional fire power these weapons provide. Our borders are wide open to Mexico and Canada and many MIDDLE EASTERN types are BLENDING INTO MEXICO NOW. Are we going to now limit their ability to properly DEFEND THESE LARGE AND PRIVATELY OWNED TRACTS OF LAND WITH GAS & OIL RESOURCES FROM UNWANTED CRIMINALS AND OR TERRORISTS? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT TWO PLANES FULL OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN FLOWN INTO THE WORLD-TRADE CENTERS? TERRORISTS ARE PLANNING TO DO SOMETHING TO US OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN…..WIDE OPEN BORDERS…ALLOWS MANY OF THEM TO FILTER ACROSS…ARMED WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS AND OR CHEMICAL AGENTS AND OR DIRTY BOMBS AND OR….GET THE POINT”

An assault rifle WILL ALLOW ONE INDIVIDUAL THE FIREPOWER TO HOLD OFF MULTIPLE ARMED CRIMINALS until help arrives. Having the extra capacity of extended magazines provides additional HOLDING POWER to KEEP TERROR AND OR CRIME AT BAY and or to totally REPEAL a multi-group assault. Landowners with large tracts of land………DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THEIR TACTICAL ADVANTAGE OF USING AN ASSAULT RIFLE AWAY FROM DEFENDING THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY – LINED WITH OIL & GAS RESOURCES - with their family(s) within….dozens of miles away from any Law Enforcement agency?

The use of ASSUALT RIFLES in the mass killing and or suicide mass suicide crimes committed to date have not been conducted with ASSUALT RIFLES. ASSAULT RIFLES are too hard to conceal, inspite of their superior fire-power, they do not provide the assailant the edge in concealment to travel to the location of their intended crime(s). The BULK OF MASS KILLINGS HAVE BEEN DONE WITH SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOLS PERIOD….LAYING BLAME ON ASSUALT RIFLES IN THE EXECUTION OF THESE STYLE OF CRIMES IS UNSUBSTANTIATED BY THE NUMBERS OF CASES HERE IN THE USA.
If you take the ability of owning and defending your home with a PURPOSE BUILT SELF DEFENSE WEAPON, WITH A WIDE OPEN BORDER BETWEEN MEXICO AND CANADA…POST 9/11….IF AND WHEN THEY COME AGAIN…….MANY MORE CAN POTENTIALLY DIE VERSUS…..THEM MOVING INTO A PROPERLY ARMED CITIZENSHIP USING ASSAULT WEAPONS TO COUNTER

I can go on and on and on….let your buddy know…assault rifles are not the choice of MASS KILLERS….the stats do not support this and hauling around an AK or AR in populated areas will get attention quickly by those that are armed to defend. Factor in the expansive USA…with literally over 80% of it rural and under private ownership……are you now telling me these people do not have the way to defend themselves with a weapon designed to counter multiple threats simultaneously…as they defend what is legally theirs to defend, with a weapon designed to do so?

ANY SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPON CAN BE MODIFIED TO FIRE MORE THAN THEIR ADVERTISED MAXIMUM AMMO – ON WEAPON MAGAZINE. Taking away ASSAULT RIFLES will simply create a new line of machining…..modifying existing semi-autos to fire and function with increased on weapon ammo PERIOD! Why go there in the first place….assault weapons are not the MAJORITY WEAPON used in crimes now……..pistols are the majority weapons used with knives following a close second.

DRUNK DRIVERS COMMIT MORE MASS KILLINGS IN THE USA THAN ASSUALT WEAPONS = PERIOD! FIX THAT PROBLEM...IF YOU GOT SOMETHING TO GRIPE ABOUT - SON!!!!

[DuckCutter7]

Why not ban any vehicle that is faster than the speed limit?

Why not ban long butcher knives?

Why not ban the ability to "Supersize" your fast food order?

These all make just as much sense as banning large capacity magazines.

So it's acceptable to just kill ONE person at a time using a singleshot but not if you are using an AR????

THE CRIMINAL ACT OF TAKING A LIFE IS WHAT IS WRONG, NOT THE INSTRUMENT AN EVIL PERSON USES TO ACCOMPLISH THE ACT.

Help me remember, HOW MANY FIREARMS did the 9/11 attackers use?

As I recall..............NONE!!!! And those MUSLIM *********x'ers killed over 3,000 PEOPLE!!!!! Don't fall into the "Lets just ban this ugly gun because it looks bad" trap.

Nicely said. A lot more than just high capacity magazines can do a lot of harm.

[RACK]

My view on "assault weapons " is and has always been this

When and if a revalution takes place,(marshall law, forced national disarmment,whatever) there will be those that have them and those that dont. I wil be with those whom do ! Come an Take it

[blackforest]

I think this debate is not about the "assault weapon" as it is more the infringement on individuals rights by the government.

[Coach W]

If guns kill people, then pencils mispell words!

This should be a prime example of why we need shovels.... So we can dig up old threads!!!

Im just playing... Im a fan of assault rifles and jokes, both at the risk of offending a marine.

[hwhit]

I had no interest in owning an "assault rifle", I had shot some and it was fun but I they were not near as accurate as my bolt rifles. Years later I shot a friend and it would group better than most bolt guns 3/4" out of the box, so I bought one and it is now my favorite varmint rifle. I believe the anti-gun crowd is just using the "assault rifle" name and negative images that many non gun owners have about them as the first step to ban all firearms JMHO.

[billfromtx]

I've never agreed with the term ASSAULT weapon...ASSAULT is an action not a thing. I can assault you with a butter knife. Its a liberal term to make them sound more ominous and dangerous than any other rifle and use that as leverage to pass laws that will infringe on our rights to practice our shooting sports with the firearm of OUR choice.