Why Do We Need Assault Weapons?

[HUHwhat]

We need assault weapons, to show respect to the more than 100,000,000 people who died in the last century alone in direct result of gun control, and the second amendment, in the constitution of the united states, is an observation of things like this going on in history from way before it was written.

Banning hi-cap magazines is like denying the holocaust existed.

If we have all our so called assault weapons banned criminal enterprises will rise up exactly as the drug cartels did in the country of Mexico, where it is %1000 (yes, that's 10Xs the 100%) illegal for civilians to own a gun, because the government is doing little to prevent illegal immigration. It's more important to understand the second amendment as a list of things necessary to the free state, where as other wise we are left helpless to be taken advantage of.

I bought an assault weapon way before I ever thought about any of this. I never asked myself why do I need this, or will I kill anyone with this. I saw how it looked to shoot in the movies, and I thought it would be fun to shoot. Next thing you know I see one for sale. I was only 18, and my mom was terrified, but after some range visits it's nothing to us now. We're used to it, and it's not a crazy gun to own. In fact it's part of the family now. I don't regret owning it, but I almost didn't buy it, and I typically keep it a secret I own one, because it scares the shit out of people who shoot: little to none.

Now with such a large body of belligerent, stupidity against us things don't look good to me. Is there anyone changing the hearts, and minds of people against assault weapons in toward our favor? If so I also want to know what are they saying.

[hotpig27]

I some times forget that you guys in the free States can own full auto guns. Being in Illinois bump fire is as close as I can get. I have a Slide Fire on one of my AR and on my AMD65.

One of the guys at work was shooting my 9mm RRA AR and a neighbor called ATF and said he was shooting a machine gun. The ATF looked at the stock and said it was legal.

Our Legislators accidentally left a loop hole last year that allows for certain people to buy SBR. I'm sure they will close that loop hole any day now. I'm sure that is as close to being allowed a Assault rifle as we will ever get in this State.

[Yellowfin]

I for one refuse to indulge the anti gun premise by referring to my rifles or any as "assault weapons", because that's repeating their lie and thus giving them credibility.

[CL3]

I for one refuse to indulge the anti gun premise by referring to my rifles or any as "assault weapons", because that's repeating their lie and thus giving them credibility.

I agree. Seeing "assault weapon" language thrown around here seems out of place?

[BestDefense=StrongOffense]

I do not own any "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazines". Some of my rifles are of a sporting nature and use standard capacity magazines.

[Yellowfin]

I agree. Seeing "assault weapon" language thrown around here seems out of place?

Not even talking about here so much as I am in conversation with society as a whole. I was debating gun ownership yesterday with a lawyer I've known for several years and everything that came from him was "assault weapon" this or "AK47" that, as if he was using 4 letter words because that's how he meant it. It's intended to be crude, degrading, politically charged, and stigmatized, and a way of them adding on the negatives by use of connotation laden terms. Take that away from them, or better, put them on the defense for it.

[internet troll]

Yep, an argument I frequently make when talking to antis. If you go to Genocidewatch.com you will find a page that lists the countries in the world that have been in one of the stages of genocide since 1940. There are about a hundred countries that have been in one of the stages with deaths from the hundreds to the millions.

Considering there are only 196 countries (give or take considering what source you use, there are countries whose sovereignty are in dispute) in the world, the threat that governments present to their citizens is real. There are millions of dead who I am sure would have loved to have been able to stand up for themselves and their loved ones vs. covering their loved ones bodies with their own body while they were being exterminated. It is better to have protection and not need it than to need protection and not have it. imo

Just something to think about in addition to what you wrote.

[Yellowfin]

I definitely add that when they talk about "mass shootings", then ask if ones involving 10,000+ count, then make them defend why they don't care about that.

[internet troll]

Also just to answer your question, here is a cut an paste I used elsewhere. Some arguments are my own, some are borrowed from others.

Will the police also be required to give up their rifles and high capacity magazines? Why will they need their high capacity rifles if they are banned.
In my opinion they will not give up their rifles. Why? Because criminals will still have access to the so called banned weapons. If they did not, the cops would have no legitimate need for the guns.
Why should criminals have access to these weapons and not honest upstanding citizens. Why should I have to worry if I can defend myself during a home invasion because I might not have enough bullets. Why should I not be able to defend myself and my family with the best and most effective that I can buy.
Just last week a single home invader broke into a woman's home with a crowbar. He chased her and her 9 year old twins into an attic where she finally shot him. She shot him 5 times and he still had enough power to get out of the house. Why should she have to worry about "what happens if I miss" or "what if there are multiple home invaders". In a home defense situation having 15, 20 or 30 bullets may be difference between a family living or dying.
Why shouldn't honest citizens be treated like the adults they and have the best that they think they need and can afford. Why should other people have the right to limit what they can do to defend themselves.
Why should criminals have access to certain weapons, and the police have access to those same weapons to defend themselves, but I need to handicap myself against the criminals.