# Why an "assault" Rifle?  Some reasons...



## billc (Aug 1, 2012)

There are some Americans who ask the question..."Who needs an "assault" rifle that can hold 30 rounds in it's magazine let alone a drum that holds 100 rounds?"  

Well first, as Bill Mattocks has pointed out, and he can correct my version of what he says if he disagrees, because of the 2nd ammendment, the constitution and the Bill of rights, the government doesn't get to ask that question.

Second, some citizens do ask that question and deserve some thoughts on why other Americans want weapons like this and the capacity that they have, as a courtesy not as a right to infringe on the rights of other Americans.   I would say that we owe it two future citizens to not limit what weapons they have access to because we don't know what the country may be like 50-100 years from now.  Many will say that even if the country turned into a horrible place, civilians could never defeat a modern military.  This could be true, but looking around the world, Syria, Libya many countries in Africa, or Latin America,  the ability to have weapons, with large magazine capacities in the hands of large groups of citizens could save lives as the government falls into tyranny pr grows unable to protect its citizens from large groups of criminals.  I think the author Larry Correia mentioned in his defense of the second ammendment that from Bismarck to Hitler's death camps was only about 30 years.  Many people wonder what would have happened if the Germans of Jewish descent had access to weapons before their government turned on them.  Now some will say there would be no way they could have held off Hitler's monsters forever.  Possibly true.  However, they may have been able to make it out of the country, in small, well armed groups, and escaped to other countries.  Do you think the drug cartels in Mexico and South America would have as easy a time murdering innocent people if those innocent people all had access to "assault" rifles and could organize to protect themselves?

If groups of Americans ever have to flee to Canada to escape a tyrannical government through one of the wilderness areas, a rifle with a large magazine capacity would make that journey more possible.  You may laugh now, but can you say that 50-100 years from now the safety and security we have now will still be there.  You could ask the Japanese, German and Italian citizens who were put in internment camps during world war 2 or the descendants of African slaves, if their rights were always protected.  As bad as those internment camps were, can anyone with credibiltiy say something like those camps wouldn't be worse in 50-100 years?

As American citizens, we have no right to limit the options of future Americans by limiting their Rights today.

Now, to a scenario today that might show why an "assualt" rifle with a high capacity magazine might be necessary and desired.

Let's say you decide to visit family during a vacation and that family lives in Texas or Arizona.  One day, you look out of the family home and a car pulls up to your property and several men pile out, all armed with "assault" rifles.  Who are they?  Well, let's say they are members of a drug cartel that just fled the scene of shoot out with members of the U.S. Border Patrol and I.C.E. and they need a place to patch up wounded colleagues, and resupply before they attempt to recross the border.  So, they come at your family home armed with "assault" rifles provided to them by the obama admininstrations Fast and Furious program.  You know, the program where the obama justice department allowed drug cartels to buy over 2500 "assault" rifles and other weapons, including some heavy ordinance.  You know, that program.  So now you have heavily armed drug dealers about to invade your home,  you call 911 but the police are 30 minutes to hour away since the border area is so vast.  Now, would you rather have a shotgun vs. several "assault" rifles, or would it be better to have one or more "assault" rifles of your own, to give your family a chance before the police arrive.  Is this implausible as a situation?

Another scenario.  You are camping in the desert of Texas and Arizona, and happen to wander into one of the National Parks that is the path used by drug dealers or Coyotes who import illegal aliens into the U.S.  Once again, thanks to the obama administration, these criminals are armed with U.S. provided "assault" rifles.  In your attempt to extricate yourself and your family from the situation, since you are isolated in the National Park, and far from immediate law enforcement help, it would really, really be nice to have one or two weapons that can put a sustained rate of fire onto these criminals as you try to make your escape.  After all, the drug cartels have been known to torture and cut the heads off of their victims.  An "assault" rifle or two, in the hands of you and your family, might make the difference between life and death.

Those are a few examples of why it isn't anyone elses business what weapon you have, as long as you don't commit crimes with it.

Maybe someone out there can come up with other examples of why "assault"  rifles may be the weapon of choice for American citizens who decide they want to own one or more.


----------



## Gentle Fist (Aug 1, 2012)

...and zombies will laugh at you when you shoot them with a handgun


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't disagree with your first statement, but as to the rest...well...I have other reasons.

First, let's qualify what constitutes an assault rifle.  I think it is important for people who are not gun enthusiasts to clearly understand what we're talking about here.

Your basic assault rifle is used by the military and certain groups within police departments (for example, SWAT teams).  It often looks something like this:




Annual Training 0085 by NDNG, on Flickr

The assault rifle in the photograph above is a primary example.  It is an M16 rifle which has some distinctive characteristics.  Primary among these is the ability to fire fully automatic bursts.  That is what is commonly referred to as a 'machine gun' in that a person can fire more than one round of ammunition by holding down the trigger.  It should be noted that civilian versions of assault rifles are semi-automatic.  That is, you must pull the trigger one time for each round fired.  However, civilian versions of such weapons often look like their military counterparts.




377560_2172247477167_1576186281_31741519_1158201586_n by visodd, on Flickr

The weapon pictured above is a civilian AR15.  This weapon is pattered off of the M16 and some parts are interchangeable.  It shares certain characteristics.  For example, it has an aluminum receiver which is easily taken apart.  It has synthetic parts, such as the buttstock and forearm.  The one pictured has also been fitted with a telescoping buttstock, a pistol-grip forearm, a 'Picatinny' rail system (on top) which holds a scope.  The rifle pictured also has a high-capacity magazine inserted in the magazine well, designed to (apparently) hold 30 rounds of ammunition.  While a fully-automatic weapon can empty a 30-round magazine in about 2 second, the typical rate of fire for a semi-automatic weapon is about one round per second.  So a person could basically shoot about 30 rounds in 30 seconds.  It depends on the person, though.  Each round requires a separate trigger pull.

Now, let's look at a common hunting rifle.




Hunting by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, on Flickr

This is a semi-automatic rifle designed for hunting.  It is similar to an assault rifle in some ways, and different in some ways.  Like the AR15, it is semi-automatic, so the trigger must be pulled for every round fired.  It also has a scope on top.  However, the stock is made of wood, not synthetic material, and it does not have an external magazine hanging down below the rifle, so it holds fewer rounds, and they must be loaded one at a time into the rifle when it is empty.

The hunting rifle is also chambered for various calibers of ammunition suited for the purpose the rifle will be used for; so the rounds it fires could be much more powerful, much less powerful, or the same as the assault rifle, which is nearly always chambered for calibers designed to be optimally effective on human beings.  An upland deer rifle, for example, would commonly be chambered for the lighter-powered rounds similar to the assault rifle (.308, .243, .223, etc), while a rifle designed for elk or larger game would be typically chambered for much larger and higher-power calibers.

Moreover, although the hunting rifle shown is visually different from the AR15 assault rifle, it is not the only kind of rifle used by sportsmen, not by a long shot (no pun intended).  Rifles used for hunting can and often are bolt action, single shot, lever action, semi-automatic, and even pump style rifles (these are different ways of loading rounds into the chamber to be fired, for those not familiar).  Some rifles have scopes, some have iron sights.  Some have wooden stocks, some have synthetic stocks.  Some even have detachable magazines very similar or identical to the magazines used in assault rifles.  In fact, the AR15 itself can and is used to hunt game with.  It has some advantages for some kinds of hunting, including being durable, light-weight, and accurate, plus having low felt recoil due to the design of the firing mechanism (gas recoil spring inside the buttstock).

In addition, we have not considered the legitimate area of target shooting, both competitive and informal ('plinking').  Although not widely reported (it's less popular than bowling or chess or badminton in the USA as far as ESPN is concerned), there are quite a few highly popular target shooting sports which involve rifles.  Many of these are actually sponsored by various state and federal agencies or held on military bases annually, where both military and civilian marksmen compete for prizes.  The rifles typically used in some of these events are the semi-automatic versions of military assault rifles, including older military rifles that were never fully-automatic to begin with, such as the M1 Garand carried by GIs in WWII.  Many people are unaware that the M1 Garand is actually sold out of our monstrous arsenal of millions of WWII-era rifles directly to civilians by our government.  Yes, the government will sell you an assault rifle (such as it was in WWII, anyway).

http://www.odcmp.com/NM.htm

http://www.odcmp.com/sales.htm



> The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is a U.S. government-chartered program that promotes firearms safety training and rifle practice for all qualified U.S. citizens with special emphasis on youth. Any U.S. citizen who is legally not prohibited from owning a firearm may purchase a military surplus rifle from the CMP, provided they are a member of a CMP affiliated club. The CMP operates through a network of affiliated shooting clubs and state associations that covers every state in the U.S. The clubs and associations offer firearms safety training and marksmanship courses as well as the opportunity for continued practice and competition.






M1 Garand by simonov, on Flickr

So let's get back to what makes an assault rifle an assault rifle.

Is it the synthetic stock?  Many civilian rifles that are not patterned after military rifles have synthetic stocks.  They have many advantages over wooden stocks.
Is it the color?  Civilian rifles used to be wood and blue steel, while military rifles were 'parkerized' in black or drab colors.  Nowadays, all colors are seen on every type of weapon.  Black is common on both civilian and military weapons.
Is it the detachable magazine?  Many civilian rifles have detachable magazines and were never military weapons.
Is it the extended capacity of some magazines (let's say 20 or more rounds of ammunition is extended capacity)?  Again any rifle, civilian or military, which has a detachable magazine can be fitted with an extended capacity magazine, and such are commonly made.
Is it the scope?  Scopes are  very common on all sorts of hunting and target rifles.

So what is it?

When Congress banned assault rifles, they had the same difficulty in defining what an assault rifle is.  What they finally came up with was this:

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



> Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
> Folding or telescoping stock
> Pistol grip
> Bayonet mount
> ...



Well, to make it clear, an AR15 (or the civilian semi-automatic version of the Soviet-era AK47, another popular assault rifle) would have been legal under the law (both have detachable magazines and pistol grips) so long as it had no other characteristics from the list above.  So, no flash suppressors, no folding or telescoping stocks, no bayonet mounts, and no grenade launchers (!).  Importers who had such weapons in their inventor merely stripped those parts from the rifles and continued selling them.  It didn't really affect too many people, because hunters are not generally interested in bayoneting deer or launching grenades (by the way, totally not legal even before the ban) at them.  If an AR15 or an AK47 came equipped with such things, no one really cared.  Some liked them because they looked the part of a military rifle.  And just like some people paint their Jeeps in camouflage colors, there are some people who prefer their rifles to look a particular way.

But let's be clear.  Have any of you heard of a bandit bayoneting any shop clerks or bank tellers or homeowners in late-night robberies?  Does it happen?  Has it ever happened?  So despite the fact that I seriously doubt any civilian 'needs' to have a rifle equipped with a bayonet mount, what crime exactly is it stopping by forcing it to be removed prior to sale?  Same for grenade launchers.  Have we been besieged by grenade-launching criminals at any time anyone can actually recall, outside of a war zone?

So what it comes down to, in my mind, is that assault rifles are 'scary-looking'.  They are no more powerful - and in some cases quite a bit less powerful - than more staid-looking wooden-stocked hunting rifles.  Those who claim that assault rifles have only one purpose are partially right - they are indeed designed to kill - as is EVERY firearm (duh), but they are completely wrong when they argue that they have no legitimate purpose in civilian hands.  Not only are they in common, and lawful, use for a variety of purposes, but as you should be able to see, they share so many characteristics with more traditional rifles that there really isn't much to use as a basis to even define what an assault rifle is, let alone how to ban them.  And of course, we have plenty of evidence that criminals just do not commonly use assault rifles in their crimes.  Exceptions are such things as the massacre in Colorado.  But we also have reports that the suspect's rifle jammed (which I believe is due to the large-capacity drum magazine, most military folks know they do that, which is why soldiers don't carry them typically), and of course that he had two pistols, which he also used.

So when someone asks me what purpose any citizen has with an assault rifle, yes, my first response is to reply that it's not a legitimate question.  For 2nd Amendment reasons, yes.  But also because it's just not a valid question.  In what material way, what significant way, is an assault rifle different than a civilian rifle?  Even the government had a hard time with that, and in the end, even during the federal assault rifle ban, an AR15 or an AK47 just like the one the suspect in Colorado carried were still perfectly legal (his 50-round drum would have been illegal, unless purchased before the ban, though).  So even if it was still in effect, it would have done nothing to stop the massacre.  And in addition to that, arguments that citizens simply have no use for a so-called assault rifle are simply untrue.  Citizens have many lawful and law-abiding uses for an assault rifle, and they're used in that manner every single day.

So to sum up - I don't really know what people mean when they say they want to ban assault rifles, and even if I get their meaning (black scary looking guns), I disagree that civilians have no legitimate use for them.  And of course, the 2nd Amendment argument, which is that it's none of their business what a citizen wants it for.  It doesn't have to be 'for' anything to be legal.  There are many questions asked on the federal form you have to fill out to buy a firearm commercially in the USA.  Not one of them is 'what is this gun for?'  That's because it is no one's business what a law-abiding citizen intends to use it for.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2012)

And the 2nd Amendment wasn't crafted to protect our ability to duck hunt....


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 1, 2012)

Bill thanks for the well thought out and informative post.  How easy and expensive is it to revert an AR15 or AK47 back to fully automatic capabilities?  I know they are never sold to the public with that capability.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 1, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Bill thanks for the well thought out and informative post.  How easy and expensive is it to revert an AR15 or AK47 back to fully automatic capabilities?  I know they are never sold to the public with that capability.



It is easy for certain models made by certain manufacturers in certain years - they used to make a 'drop-in' automatic sear that would supposedly convert an AR15 (I don't know about AK47) to fully-automatic status many years ago.  Such devices have been banned for a couple decades, but supposedly it is not illegal to sell one that was made before the ban.  However, it is illegal to own both a rifle that the drop-in part fits and the drop-in part; even if not fitted to the rifle, I believe it is still considered a fully-automatic weapon if you own them both.  For more recent weapons, they are intentionally designed to be difficult to convert to fully-automatic use.  A machinist/gunsmith could do it - but they could also build a weapon from scratch if they had the tools and skills.  For the average Joe, not so much.  For the AR15, the entire bolt-carrier group as well as the lower receiver are intentionally quite different.  Nothing a guy with a screwdriver and a drill press could accomplish.

Remember, these are not 'deactivated' military weapons that were converted to fire semi-automatic mode.  They were just designed to look like military weapons; they're typically not even built by the same companies that made the fully-automatic weapons.  Many external parts are interchangeable, such as stocks, sights, and so on, but not the internal parts.

Take a look at this, I think it explains and illustrates it pretty well...

http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/registeredreceiver.htm

By the way, a couple facts about fully-automatic weapons.

1) Civilians can legally own them.  But they are highly restricted and under tight federal control - and VERY expensive to buy and transfer.  Lawful civilian owners of fully-automatic weapons are also among the most law-abiding citizens on earth; there is nearly no crime associated with them.

2) Illegally converting a semi-automatic weapon to full auto is both dangerous and highly illegal.

3) Fully-automatic weapons are not known for their accuracy.  They are useful in war (to a limited extent, for which reason the military also has 'burst mode' to limit one trigger pull to 3 rounds instead of 'spray and pray').

4) Firing a weapon fully-automatic costs a whole lot of money very quickly.  You can rip through the better part of a hundred bucks in less than a minute.  Not my idea of fun.

Even in a zombie apocalypse, I'd choose semi-automatic aimed fire.  For one thing, ammunition costs money.  For another, it's HEAVY to carry around.  I want each shot to matter.  So for me, full-automatic is not something I have any interest in.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 1, 2012)

Thanks Bill.  The reason I asked is there have been a couple of shootings here in KC where the shooter used fully automatic weapons.  I was just wondering if it was something we'd see more of.  Hopefully we won't, given it is hard to convert them.  

Personally, I'd rather be shooting in single or burst too, but I've fired enough rifles that I have become a fairly good shot.  The asshats shooting guns here in KC many times miss what they are shooting at and sometimes hit innocents.  For those type that don't care, pure volume equates to accuracy.  So I'm g;ad the access to those guns that fire atomatically are not easily available.

I have to admitt, your post made me feel a bit better about guns such as AR15's though I am not completely comfortable with the idea of them yet.  Billi's post just made me laugh


----------



## billc (Aug 1, 2012)

So, you are out on your fishing boat in a fresh water lake and all of a sudden you see another boat approaching yours.  You reach down into your boat, and check to make sure the magazine is lock and loaded in your "assault" rifle just to be on the safe side.  Why?  Here might be one reason...

http://bmoresound.wordpress.com/201...ing-american-fisherman-in-the-gulf-of-mexico/



> Heavily armed Mexican  freshwater pirates have been shaking down U.S. boaters on Falcon Lake, a  reservoir and bass fishing haven that straddles the Rio Grande.
> At  least three such incidents have been reported since April 30, the  latest on Sunday, according to a Texas Department of Public Safety  warning issued Tuesday that linked the muggings to northern Mexicos  increasing lawlessness.
> According to descriptions of the  incidents, the robbers  in at least one case posing as Mexican federal  law enforcement officers  searched fishermens boats for guns and  drugs, then demanded cash at gunpoint.
> One of the incidents  reportedly occurred on the U.S. side of the lake.
> ...



Do you think these Pirates got their Ak-47's and AR-15 rifles from the obama justice department?


----------



## billc (Aug 1, 2012)

And for those who enjoy sailing in around the world...

http://yachtpals.com/boating/piracy-warnings



> In light of the recent pirate attack and taking of hostages on the yacht Le Ponant, we thought it a wise time to warn our YachtPals of the dangerous waters we sometimes sail.  Although most places in the world are relatively safe, and free of pirate attacks, there are currently some big problem areas we need to warn mariners about.
> 
> -- Piracy Prone Areas and Warnings --
> *Highest Risk Areas for Piracy Attack in 2008 Include:
> ...


----------



## billc (Aug 1, 2012)

Yes, you'll never have a problem in U.S. national parks...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1917547,00.html


> Far from an isolated incident, the Los Padres fire, according to law enforcement
> agents, highlights an alarming trend: the invasion of California wilderness and
> parklands by armed Mexican drug cartels. Firefighters discovered more than
> 30,000 pot plants growing near the Santa Barbara blaze.





> A few murders have occurred among suspected Mexican traffickers, and it is
> common for the cartels to hijack a rival's crop at harvest. Says Gregory, "On
> nearly every raid we find weapons." Many times, in fact, the cartel will
> encircle their marijuana plots with deadly booby-traps, such as buried spikes or
> ...





> So far, the extreme violence that the Mexican cartels practice back home hasn't
> spilled over to California. Up north, says one Drug Enforcement Administration
> agent, "They're better behaved." But the main Mexican cartels &#8212; La Familia, Los
> Gueros, the Sinaloa and Tijuana cartels &#8212; are all growing cannabis in
> ...


----------



## Blindside (Aug 1, 2012)

mxav said:


> You don't need one unless you're a criminal or a terrorist.



Oh gods.


----------



## billc (Aug 1, 2012)

And about our national parks...

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2004/2004-09-01-02.html



> Eggle was shot and killed in the line of duty at Organ Pipe Cactus National
> Monument, while pursuing members of a drug cartel hit squad who fled into the
> United States after committing a string of murders in Mexico.
> 
> ...


. 



> Florida's Biscayne National Park is especially dangerous, marked at Number
> Six on the list. The Fraternal Order of Police says, "Lots of drug smuggling,
> illegal fishing, and a nuclear power plant threatened by terrorists, mean danger
> for a ranger force that is small and getting smaller. While the Coast Guard
> ...



And this from NPR...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4652462



> Cartels Use Sequoia National Forest to Grow Pot





> The Mineral King Road is one such zone.  Picturesque, strewn with orange      and white windflowers, the road's 690 switchbacks afford breathtaking      views of the Kaweah drainage.  And it's an ideal artery for marijuana      growers who ply their trade on the canyon's steep water-rich slopes.      Unidentified Ranger:  The quality of marijuana being produced in this      park by the cartel organizations is (Spanish spoken).  I mean, it is fine      product.
> BURKE:  This masked ranger wears dark glasses and face paint and he's      been ordered by his supervisors not to give his name.  With evidence of      firearms found in almost every encampment, he says law enforcement agents      in the park can't afford to take chances.
> Unidentified Ranger:  AK-47 assault rifle, multiple long arms, 30-30      rifles, 12-gauge shotguns, semi-automatic handguns, 9mm, .40-caliber,      .45.  These are powerful calibers that can punch through body armor and      can cause people a lot of harm.



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/18/federal-lands-arizona-travel-warnings-place/



> Imagine the federal government closing a section of the Lincoln  Memorial because it was under the control of Mexican drug lords and bands of  illegal immigrants.
> That scenario is playing out as reality in southern Arizona, where parts of  five federal lands -- including two designated national monuments -- continue to  post travel warnings or be outright closed to Americans who own the land because  of the dangers of "human and drug trafficking" along the Mexican border.
> Roughly 3,500 acres of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge -- about 3  percent of the 118,000-acre park -- have been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials acknowledged a marked increase in  violence along a tract of land that extends north from the border for roughly  three-quarters of a mile. Federal officials say they have no plans to reopen the  area.
> Elsewhere, at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, which shares a 32-mile  stretch of the border with Mexico, visitors are warned on a federally-run  website that some areas are not accessible by anyone.
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 1, 2012)

mxav said:


> You don't need one unless you're a criminal or a terrorist.



So let's examine that.

First, need is an interesting word.  Everyone needs air or they cannot breathe.  Everyone needs food, water, and generally speaking, shelter from the elements.  Beyond that, there's not much that we humans can be said to legitimately 'need'.  But in another, less literal use of the word, we need to be free.  We need to have good government.  We need to have police.  We need law and order.  We need to have the right to defend ourselves from violence.

Given that last item, it has been generally understood since the founding of our nation that the need to be able to defend ourselves includes the ability to defend ourselves with firearms.  So it can be said, without too much of a stretch, that we Americans need the right to own guns.  And, as it turns out, we have that right.

But given that we have the right to own a gun, is there a limit on what sort of gun?  There is.  We cannot own certain types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and fully-automatic weapons.

So what of the assault rifle?  The civilian version is neither sawed-off nor is it fully automatic.  So it is - at this moment at least - legal.

On what basis should it be banned?  Well, we don't have a specific need for an assault rifle over, say a bolt-action rifle.  Unless one is doing one of many legal things that make a semi-automatic weapon a better choice than a bolt-action weapon.

But supposing we gave up the assault weapons?  Would that fix any problems?

It seems that based on what I pointed out about the previous federal assault rifle ban, most so-called assault rifles would still have been perfectly legal for the Colorado shooter to buy and own.  He would have been prohibited the use of a grenade launcher or a bayonet mount, and he might have had trouble buying a large-capacity drum magazine unless it was made prior to the ban.

So what would banning assault rifles solve?

And as I've also asked, do criminals commonly use semi-automatic assault rifles?  FBI crime statistics show that they are overwhelmingly NOT the preference of armed criminals.  They're actually pretty rarely used by criminals.  And terrorists?  Which terrorists have used assault rifles in the USA?  So far, they've used bombs, planes-as-bombs, anthrax spores, and what else?  Not assault rifles yet, to the best of my knowledge.  And one might suspect that overseas, the terrorist prefers the fully automatic weapons that are widely available in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

So what does banning an assault rifle actually do?

As to who needs one - I refer back to my original comment with regard to your reply - it doesn't matter what I 'need' a particular weapon for.  It's no one's business.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't think people need sports cars either...who needs to be able to drive at 120MPH? They are a danger....I say outlaw them. Mustangs, Corvette, etc....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 1, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I don't think people need sports cars either...who needs to be able to drive at 120MPH? They are a danger....I say outlaw them. Mustangs, Corvette, etc....
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



And motorcycles they don't even have doors.  And don't get me started on states that don't require helmets.  And kitchen knives you know how many people get stabbed by kitchen knives its crazy.  Oh and martial arts why does anyone need to learn to kill with their hands there is no need for it just pure killing of another human ban ban ban


----------



## Tgace (Aug 1, 2012)

I also find it interesting how the grabbers try to use us LEO's as their supporters. Short of a few politically motivated chiefs or commissioners, most of us are very pro 2nd.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 1, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I also find it interesting how the grabbers try to use us LEO's as their supporters. Short of a few politically motivated chiefs or commissioners, most of us are very pro 2nd.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



I tell everyone I meet if you are allowed to own a gun then you need to own 2.  I know the reality that I'm nothing more then a report taker.  I do my best to try to help people but by the time I'm called the crime  is over.  I'm cleaning up the mess and taking a report.  Your on your own until someone can call me and I can get there.  So you better be prepared


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 1, 2012)

billcihak said:


> And about our national parks...
> 
> http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2004/2004-09-01-02.html
> 
> ...



Well sir, I think you have made your point.  The USA is a dangerous place to live.  I suggest you take up a martial art.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 1, 2012)

mxav said:


> You don't need one unless you're a criminal or a terrorist.



Or are a law abiding person who has a fascination with weapons.  Or are a law abiding person for whom weapons and weapons collecting is a hobby.

Or perhaps you are a law abiding person who wants to be able to be part of a well armed militia if needed?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 1, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Or are a law abiding person who has a fascination with weapons.  Or are a law abiding person for whom weapons and weapons collecting is a hobby.
> 
> Or perhaps you are a law abiding person who wants to be able to be part of a well armed militia if needed?



Or a law-abiding person who target shoots competitively, or who hunts and finds an assault rifle to have benefits they prefer.  Or a law-abiding person who just wants one, no reason given...


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 1, 2012)

Or a law abiding citizen that's hooked on the show doomsday preppers oh wait that's me


----------



## Marcy Shoberg (Aug 1, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Or perhaps you are a law abiding person who wants to be able to be part of a well armed militia if needed?



I was actually going to make a similar point.  I know a person who owns such a gun because he is a bit of a doomday prepper, but not terribly committed, and hopes that his owning a really good gun might get him invited to join a group of others who have, for example, made better food preparations than he, but not own as good of a gun.


----------



## billc (Aug 1, 2012)

In a doomsday scenario you can always use your gun to take away all the stuff the Amish have...:angel:

I mention this because my social studies teacher in High School did a topic on the Amish and the Abkajians, and a film we watched mentioned that because they practice more primitive farming, if anything happened to civilization, they would still be able to farm...


----------



## elder999 (Aug 1, 2012)

tgace said:


> i don't think people need sports cars either...who needs to be able to drive at 120mph? They are a danger....i say outlaw them. Mustangs, corvette, etc....
> 
> Sent from my droidx using tapatalk




*blasphemer!!!!!*


----------



## elder999 (Aug 2, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I mention this because my social studies teacher in High School did a topic on the Amish and the Abkajians, and a film we watched mentioned that because they practice more primitive farming, if anything happened to civilization, they would still be able to farm...




People on Indian reservations. 

People in small farming communities (the ones that are left, anyway). 

Mormons-some of them anyway.

Mennonites-some of them anyway.

Doomsdayers-the ones that have their **** in one sock, anyway.

People who live on boats-believe it or not...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 2, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I don't think people need sports cars either...who needs to be able to drive at 120MPH? They are a danger....I say outlaw them. Mustangs, Corvette, etc....
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



You can have my sports car when you pry the keys from my cold dead hand!


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2012)

Actually, Ballen is a law enforcement officer with years of street experience, so you might want to pay attention to what he has to say...



> so you do advocate preying on others? speaks volumes if even in swarmy humor that fails.



Only if they can't protect themselves, otherwise it is way too dangerous...


----------



## Blindside (Aug 2, 2012)

mxav said:


> If your aim is so bad you need an automatic rifle to brin g down a duck, you need a new hobby, and you know it.



I'm not quite sure why your panties are in such a bunch about this topic, but you are aware that nobody hunts ducks with a rifle? And if they do hunt, they are often using semi-automatic shotguns which have the exact same rate of fire as the so called "assault" rifles that are available to civilians?


----------



## Blindside (Aug 2, 2012)

mxav said:


> actually typical karate-guy macho fantasy bullpuckey.



So you rely on someone else to protect you and your loved ones?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 2, 2012)

mxav said:


> paranoid thinking



Ok Ive been a Cop for 12 years its more then Paranoid thinking its a FACT you cant count on the police being there to save you.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 2, 2012)

mxav said:


> actually typical karate-guy macho fantasy bullpuckey.



Nope its called living in the real world you should try it sometime


----------



## Tgace (Aug 2, 2012)

Dudes a one sentence troll....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## zDom (Aug 2, 2012)

Added note: it isn't difficult to legally own a fully-automatic weapon. It is just expensive due to the artificial scarcity (civilians may only own fully auto weapons manufactured or imported before 1986) driving up the prices.

So only rich people have easy access to fully automated weapons.

Hurts my feelings. The most fun I've ever had shooting with a firearm was with a borrowed MP5. Amazing platform. But I don't have an extra $20,000 to spend on one... yet.

Other fully auto weapons I've had the joy of playing with include WW II vintage BAR (first from a bipod, then Rambo style  ), Tommy Gun, Uzi, AK-47, MAC-11 ...

If you even get the opportunity, spend a bit of money on some ammo and try it. Fun stuff.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 2, 2012)

zDom said:


> If you even get the opportunity, spend a bit of money on some ammo and try it. Fun stuff.



Uncle Sam supplied mine.  I wish to extend my thanks to the taxpayers for that.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 2, 2012)

zDom said:


> Added note: it isn't difficult to legally own a fully-automatic weapon. It is just expensive due to the artificial scarcity (civilians may only own fully auto weapons manufactured or imported before 1986) driving up the prices.
> 
> So only rich people have easy access to fully automated weapons.
> 
> ...



That's also state dependent....in NY you would need to be running a mil/le related firearms biz to get a class III weapon or a suppressor as a civilian.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2012)

Folks,

Some of these posts are a step away from crossing the line on personal shots.  Let's keep it civil please.


----------



## zDom (Aug 6, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Uncle Sam supplied mine.  I wish to extend my thanks to the taxpayers for that.



I blame my high school guidance counselor for not selling a law enforcement or a military career better.


----------



## zDom (Aug 6, 2012)

Tgace said:


> That's also state dependent....in NY you would need to be running a mil/le related firearms biz to get a class III weapon or a suppressor as a civilian.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Quite true. Here in Missouri things are pretty easy as far as Class III weapons. Just expensive to actually get your hands on the hardware.


----------

