Assault Rifles? For what?

[Kevp]

:strapping on my protective helmet:

Ok, I used to be anti-guns before I really started analyzing the whole gun law thing. Flordia, Virgina etc haven't seen an increase in violence from legal gun owners so I thought it was only fair we be able to strap up and protect ourselves from criminals who could give two $hi1tz about the legality of carrying.

But I've always been against these assault rifles. I'm no expert, so when I think assault rifle I'm thinking something that fires tons of bullets out at one time. Like an M16 or something. A machine gun isn't an assault rifle (I don't think) but I'm pretty much against that too.

I'm willing to be open minded about it which is why I'm asking. What would anyone use an assault rifle or machine gun for [in a regular urban or suburban enviornment] you cannot hunt with them (I don't think) so the only real use would be for collecting or spraying many bullets at many people quickly and efficiently.

Anyone care to shed any light or change my mind? Let's not attack I'm simply asking a question.

I see you own a handgun or two by your avatar. So why do you need a handgun? The majority of gun crimes committed in this Country are committed with illegal (i.e. stolen or not obtained in a legal manner) handguns- so why should you have one particularly in an urban environment?

How does that make you feel? Do you feel like it infringes on your rights? Assault weapons sound dangerous. They come from a military lineage for the most part, so they are easy targets for the "why would anyone need one of those" crowd.

Would you ask a WWII vet who owns a M1 Garand why he needs that gun? Don't you think he has an attachment to it for obvious reasons? I am a vet that used M16/M4 series weapons my whole career. I have the same attachment to those as the WWII vet does to his Garand. That is my personal reason.

Finally, in looking at what the Founding Fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment- they wanted the common man armed in order to assist as militia to protect the Country as well as to be able to discourage tyranny from the Gov't. In those days that meant a man was armed with a musket. Today it is an AR 15 or clone (i.e. an assault rifle). Pretty clear to me.

 

[canuck]

I see you own a handgun or two by your avatar. So why do you need a handgun? The majority of gun crimes committed in this Country are committed with illegal (i.e. stolen or not obtained in a legal manner) handguns- so why should you have one particularly in an urban environment?

How does that make you feel? Do you feel like it infringes on your rights? Assault weapons sound dangerous. They come from a military lineage for the most part, so they are easy targets for the "why would anyone need one of those" crowd.

Would you ask a WWII vet who owns a M1 Garand why he needs that gun? Don't you think he has an attachment to it for obvious reasons? I am a vet that used M16/M4 series weapons my whole career. I have the same attachment to those as the WWII vet does to his Garand. That is my personal reason.

Finally, in looking at what the Founding Fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment- they wanted the common man armed in order to assist as militia to protect the Country as well as to be able to discourage tyranny from the Gov't. In those days that meant a man was armed with a musket. Today it is an AR 15 or clone (i.e. an assault rifle). Pretty clear to me.

Here, Here!

 

[Lindsay's Dad]

"...should be as well equipped and funded as our military." Partial quote from POTUS. Does this mean I get to make my AR FA or are the USA/MC going to convert theirs to SA? Probably neither.

However after almost a decade of service with the M-16. I am more comfortable and intimantly familiar with that platform than any other on the planet. Why wouldn't I want one?

MikeV

 

[G35driver]

Great thread....

 

[Pushrod]

:strapping on my protective helmet:


But I've always been against these assault rifles. I'm no expert, so when I think assault rifle I'm thinking something that fires tons of bullets out at one time. Like an M16 or something. A machine gun isn't an assault rifle (I don't think) but I'm pretty much against that too.

I'm willing to be open minded about it which is why I'm asking. What would anyone use an assault rifle or machine gun for [in a regular urban or suburban enviornment] you cannot hunt with them (I don't think) so the only real use would be for collecting or spraying many bullets at many people quickly and efficiently.

Anyone care to shed any light or change my mind? Let's not attack I'm simply asking a question.

Ask the Korean-Americans in LA during the riots that defended their property with AK's and AR's from roving gangs of looters. Not one of their shops or homes where touched. The second amendment was never primarily about hunting.

 

[StrangeLove]

In addition to all the good comments made above, I'd like to add a few.

Modern semi-auto rifles are the cutting edge in firearms technology. Not being able to buy one is like telling car buyers they can only buy 40 year old cars.

Modern semi-auto rifles are expensive. Your typical liquor store robber isn't going to buy one.

Modern semi-auto rifles are big. You aren't going to stuff one into your pants and go rob the bank.

 

[wlc]

Using the logic that no one NEEDS an Assault Rifle (EBR for Evil Black Rifle)
Then we should ban SUV's, they eat too much gas for one person to drive to work. Pleasure Boats, Burning gas for pure pleasure.

I'm sure that's coming soon

 

[fivepointstar]

Derrick

very good thread....

I'll admit that I was once in your shoes probably about a year ago and I'll be the 1st to admit I was 200% wrong!!!

My reasons were more selfish I guess, my logic was

"If I don't really want/need it (Assault Weapons etc) then why should people be allowed to get them." At the time I just saw no need for them and wanted them heavy gov't regulated like SBR or suppressors are. Its safe to say that those opinions are long long gone.

I know there was a thread a few weeks ago that dealt with the CCW/RKBA issue where I expressed gov't regulations. I was extremely unpopular for those beliefs and I stood by them. As you see I used "stood" which was past tense verb. its people like you and me on MDS, people I meet at the range, people I meet at gun store and gun shows etc that changed my mind.

Its our responsibility NOT TO CHANGE the minds of others but EDUCATION them and allow them to make their own decision. What pissed me off about the other thread was I thought some of you here were the linching mob and wanted to hang my butt from a tree. I understand that this is a passionate subject for us and it should be!! But be patient and understand that not all people share your views and you won't be able to change everyones minds overnight.

Like Derrick....I'm extremely open minded and there are many others that are willing to listen to reason but don't let others mistake your passion for a radical.

I'm ready to be put in front of the firing squad for my OLD beliefs but I'm slowly changing the minds and culture of people I know (my wife, my parents, my inlaws who are firey liberals etc) and meet. I'm not complete convinced yet of everything but the threat of the new admn has really opened my mind how "radical socialist" gov't is and can be. This is what scares me now. Anyway, I hope I got my point across.

 

[...]

:strapping on my protective helmet:
Anyone care to shed any light or change my mind? Let's not attack I'm simply asking a question.

Sure. Let's say hypothetically I want to shoot someone, you. What would you rather get shot with?

A bullet designed to kill a moose at 1,000 yards (right and center) or a Military bullet designed to wound (military=wounding because you take 3 people out of combat instead of just 1) a 150lb man (on the left)?

it also help when there is gang initiations and groups of them are going around for home invasions. Not to mention many criminal realize the people they are robbing have shotguns or low energy pistols (38, 9mm, etc) so they just buy level II body armor.

 

[SigMatt]

Not going to expand on the reasons given since they are the same I would have given.

I will add to the self-defense option. To me, next to a shotgun, my preferred home defense firearm is a short-barreled AR-15. You've heard of home invasion where 3-4 perps storm in. Well, an 8-15 round handgun means I better be on target with each shot because I may not have time for a magazine change. With 20-30 rounds in the magazine in the AR, I may not run out of ammunition. In self-defense, I'd rather be found holding a smoking gun with rounds left in the magazine than dead with it next to me empty.

Plus, a hollow-point .223 has about three times the impact energy as .45ACP and it is more accurate. In close quarters under stress, I am more likely to not miss with the short rifle than I am the full size pistol. That matters a lot to me.

Yet, I do not use an AR for this purpose even though I would like to. But I still have the option to do so.

In a temporary loss of civil order, most assuredly those military-style rifles will become my constant companions. The high-powered "sniper rifles" and surplus guns will stay locked away and anything with a standard capacity magazine that is semi-automatic will be doled out liberally.

Matt

 

[bluecollarkid]

I believe I am responsible for the "luke warm" statement. From where I stand you either support the 2nd Amendment or you don't, there are no degrees in terms of which arms people can possess (as clarified by the SCOTUS, of course). The 2nd Amendment was put in place to give the "People" as means to resist the tyranny of an oppressive central government. Those who say, "some guns are OK but others aren't" are luke-warm in their support for the 2nd Amendment and are allowing the dissolution of our protections from a oppressive gov. and our natural rights as free citizens. With that philosophy in mind, the purpose and practical use of "assault rifles" is clear. The ability to possess those types of weapons somewhat levels the playing field when it comes to a confrontation with an oppressive governmental entity.

Edit:

Kudos to you for being open-minded on the issue. :thumbs up:

 

[ozwyn]

Allow me to add another .02

Semi-automatic copies of assault rifles still maintain some mechanism that happens to reduce felt recoil.

The same mechanical functions that permit effective use in burst fire, also means the shooter is probably getting a lot less beat up by their weapon.

So Semi-automatic versions of assault rifles fulfill a functional need for firearms of small or medium calibers that are forgiving on the shoulder of the shooter. It lets people of a smaller, lighter body frames shoow just as well as people who are used to the recoil of other rifle actions.

So basically, banning assault-looking rifles would discriminate against people who can't handle the recoil of the same caliber in a conventional bolt-action weapon.

Well... that's one spin at any rate. But trying shooting a .308 semi-automatic and a .308 bolt action and tell me if you feel a differencein the shoulder.

 

[futureseabee]

the second amendment's main goal is to limit the power of the government and give the power to the people, so if the government has the money it buys a tank or a howitzer so why shouldn't the people if we are to fight a government that has all these things and is oppressive

 

[alucard0822]

everyone else laid it out pretty good why modern firearms aka "assault weapons" are needed, and protected as a right. They are simply the most advanced weapons available extending from a long line of civilian firearms that has mirrored contemporary military arms since the founding of our country. Semi-auto versions are used in most every "sporting purposes" category there it, although that is a relatively modern concept invented to attempt to justify a series of unconstitutional laws. Some of the features common to "assault weapons", like high capacity, low recoil, ergonomic and often times adjustable designs, light weight, and relatively compact size ender them to many people that have trouble with larger more powerful rifles. The illicit use of weapons has been a problem since the dawn of time, and the founding fathers were fully aware of their use in crime, and the near impossibility of keeping weapons of some sort out of the hands of people who would use them to break the law. Their greatest fear was not criminals doing what they had always done, it was of governments doing what they have always done, grabbing for power, slipping into tyranny and legislating natural birthrights away. In the modern world, many governmets have fallen either natonally like Iceland, Germany, or Russia, and locally in instances like Katrina, LA, or even some lawless areas deep in the cities, leaving citizens at the mercy of criminals that are responsible for millions of violent crimes a year, or Governments that can cause attrocites to their own people all to often, to the tune of 100,000,000 killed in Europe during the 20th century. It is a simple matter of power, the vast majority of citizens are not criminals, and by keeping contemporary arms they hold the power to repel a violent attack from criminals, protect their family during a natural or man made disaster, and even to help keep their government relatively honest, no need to look further than England, the EU and Australia to see the number of freedoms legislated away when the government holds all the cards, and the disarmed populace is held subject.

The fact that rifles of all types including bolt, single shot, semi auto, and select fire (full auto) also make poor weapons for criminals is also apparent in the fact that on average they are only used in leass than 1% of crimes, the FBI and justice dept do not keep seperate state for "assault weapons", so their actual use in crime is lower than the 1% figure, how much lower is a guess by anyone. In the stats used by gun control groups that claim 30%, they include semi auto handguns that can accept mags over 10 rounds (most modern full sized and compact autos), leaving 70% of the weapons used in crimes as small single stack autos and revolvers, their use of this number is misleading at best.

There are also more than 100,000 real deal full auto machine guns in private hands, and the law remained almost unchanged since 1934 when they required a background check, registration and $200 tax to purchase one, in 1986, the registration of new machine guns was closed, and an individual cannotlegally buy an unregistered machine gun, however thousands of modern "post 86" machine guns are owned by FFLs and SOTs, and are parts of many of their personal collections, thing is that there have only been 2 crimes ever commited with these thousands of legally owned mahine guns, one by a police officer who had access to an unregistered department issued machine gun, leaving every other crime involving machine guns to those stolen from police, individuals, FFls or military personnel and associated arsenals, or those illegally converted, home made or imported. Contrary to what is portrayed, their use by criminals is almost statistically insignifigant.

More or less, the point is that there are several defensive and sporting uses for both select fire machine guns, and their semi-auto versions, they also embody the intention of the 2nd ammendment to arm the citizenry with modern weapons that use contemporary technology. Coupled with their extremly low use in crime, there is little real reason to restrict the millions of responsible owners, and plenty to question the motives of those who attempt to.

 

[trickg]

What would anyone use an assault rifle or machine gun for [in a regular urban or suburban enviornment] you cannot hunt with them (I don't think) so the only real use would be for collecting or spraying many bullets at many people quickly and efficiently.

Anyone care to shed any light or change my mind? Let's not attack I'm simply asking a question.

Why does someone go out and play golf? What's the purpose? Why do some people like to water ski? Why do people do any of the things they do recreationally?

The fact is, shooting a lot of bullets down range at a target quickly and efficiently is a LOT of fun - period. Does there really have to be another reason?

 

[ChannelCat]

When someone asks me "why do you need an assault weapon" whom I know is closed-minded on the subject, my stock answer is:

"It's a freedom thing,
you wouldn't understand!"

I was thinking about having a tee shirt made up with that on it along with a picture of an AR-15

 

[AKbythebay]

I am just as able to kill someone (probably more-so) with my Remington 700 BDL .270 hunting rifle with high powered scope as I am with my AR-15.

The point is, the so called "assault rifles" receive a lot of focus in the media because they are scarry looking, not because they are responsible for more crime and murders than other types of weapons. A true "assault rifle" is capable of firing repeatedly with one pull of the trigger. Civilian AR's and AK's are semi-auto only and pose no greater threat than any other type of semi-auto rifle out there. The libs and antis simply don't like them because they look like military guns. Their arguments for banning them are not based on any statisical analysis of crime stats, they are based solely on emotion.

Don't fall for their trap!

 

[vette97]

My input: I was in the Army and loved the M16. When I recently started collecting with my C&R, I saw the AR15's but didn't have any interest in owning one. When Obama said he was going to ban them, I bought one. Not because I really really wanted one, but because I might not be able to have one. I wanted to enjoy shooting it like I did in the Army. So, that's what I did. It was like riding a bicycle, I never forget what I learned. I use it for target practice. I put 3 rounds in the magazine, fire them off using the iron sights and then use the spotting scope to see how I did. I found out I'm not as good as I was back then. But, that's all I wanted it for. I would use it as a home defense weapon if I didn't have access to my handgun due to it being the shortest rifle in my cabinet, its ease of use and its low recoil compared to my other rifles.

 

[Bigfoot21075]

I believe I am responsible for the "luke warm" statement. From where I stand you either support the 2nd Amendment or you don't, there are no degrees in terms of which arms people can possess (as clarified by the SCOTUS, of course). The 2nd Amendment was put in place to give the "People" as means to resist the tyranny of an oppressive central government. Those who say, "some guns are OK but others aren't" are luke-warm in their support for the 2nd Amendment and are allowing the dissolution of our protections from a oppressive gov. and our natural rights as free citizens. With that philosophy in mind, the purpose and practical use of "assault rifles" is clear. The ability to possess those types of weapons somewhat levels the playing field when it comes to a confrontation with an oppressive governmental entity.

Edit:

Kudos to you for being open-minded on the issue. :thumbs up:

I am AMAZED at how this has been totally forgotten and dilluted over the years. As much as I can not see the need for me to ever own a machine gun - I CLEARLY see the need to defend the right.

Good thread

 

[cyclrcr]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was told that the M-16A2's were not capable of full automatic fire anymore. Instead they have safe,semi, and 3rd burst.

When Continental had H&K day, I fired an MP5. Full was fun!!!! If I had the money, I would own one for the fun factor alone!