Assault rifles for self defense

[WillowTree]

If I were to guess... it's fear.
Not that it's a bad thing. But fear or paranoia or the belief of required, increased security, is a relevant topic. It's the knowledge that law enforcement and the military can't be everywhere - we're too big, and those branches are too small to cover everyone in the country. Should, say, China go apeshit and invade, at some point, men and women who aren't military can and will take up their assault rifles and defend themselves.

On the border states, it might be fear that the Mexican drug cartels will push harder into the country. It's a very real and very relevant possibility to those people. I don't blame them for wanting to stock up on guns and ammo.

But for people like me, I don't have such an issue. I have 3 guns, none of which are even semi auto (pump-action, bolt-action, single action), but I personally feel that if it takes me more than 3 shots to kill a home invader, I probably deserve to die.

I have no need for an assault rifle. IMO, you're doing something very wrong if it takes you 30 shots to down a few people, unless you're in the military.

What if four people invade your home and kill your wife and children! Don't let the libtards tell you that doesn't happen cause it does.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is the current front page of HuffPo. Yeah, I know, you rw's are scared to death of HuffPol but, you can't escape these facts.

Understand that the front page headlines change so the chances are it will look different if you go look later. But, all of these stories are available - if only you cared enough to read them. For that matter, if lobbyist Wayne LaPierre cared enough to look.

Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post



How in the world can anyone keep a straight face while saying we need more guns?

No one is scared of huffie puffie. It's the disinformation and facetious information that most people detest

PROVE those headlines are not true.

PROVE the headlines are "disinformation and facetious".

I never said the shootings wasn't true I just commented about huffy puffy and the disinformation they are known for.
But however what better reason to remain armed with all the shootings?

 

[BreezeWood]

But...I dont fear our military instilling tyranny on me. They'd never do that. I dont know why so many nutjobs out there think they would. And NO COUNTRY will ever invade the US. Not possible.

it is a strawman argument by the nutjobs who perceive everything as a threat and try to drag everyone with them down their dark ally -

everyone should have a gun for hunting and self protection that wants one just not military ordinance meant solely for mass killing of people.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Twenty minutes for a police response from four minutes away, 5 miles at the max, at speed. Meanwhile, Mr Lanza was killing 1.3 innocents a minute, a rate that would have done the Einsatzgruppen proud.
The Clackamas County Mall shooting was halted two victims in by the presence of an armed, trained, and prepared off duty security guard.
I remind you of Ricjhard miniter's story about Lindisfarne, an eight century monastery that disavowed any armed protection, choosing to ignore the evil around it at the beginning of the dark ages, thinking that by closing its eyes and mind to evil, evil would pass it by in the monastery's isolation. The Viking raiders climbed the rock walls at night clenching their swords in their teeth. They slaughtered the monks wantonly for sport, much like the children were slaughtered.
They discussed a WhiteHouse video site on Fox's 'Bulls and Bears" this morning that you can go to and calculate the number of Government benefits you're supposedly entitled to. One commenter said he was eligible for thirty five, the modereator Brenda buttner said she calculated she was eligible for in excess of fifty. Why? What do well paid gainfully employed entertainers need in the way of government support. All this administration is doing by this overly generous distribution of Government largesse is increasing the populations dependence on Government, and feeding Obama's Narcissistic ego, at the expense of future generations. Caligula doesn't have to climb to the top of Rome's tallest buildings and hurl fistfuls of gold coins down onto the swirling masses below today.
"I voted Obama because if Romney win, no more food stamps" -"Watter's World" on Fox. Jefferson's idea of the ideal citizen was a farmer who read Homer in the original Greek at night. My, we have 'come a long way, baby" since then.
The Founders deliberately inserted the right to own and bear arms in the Constitution precisely because of their fear of the coming of someone like Obama to allow the citizenry the opportunity to redress grievances caused by an overbearing government.
Mr Obama needs to resign first, then the nation can talk guns. He's the very reason we needed the second Amendment in the first place.

 

[bayoubill]

I can easily understand why alotta folks think it's inconceivable that our government would ever become so out-of-control repressive that we, as a people, would be driven to the point where we seriously considered taking up arms in rebellion...

but who knows what the political landscape will be, say, 50 years from now...?


I 'spect that the colonial folks in 1726 wouldn't, in their wildest dreams, have been able to imagine that, 50 years hence, their children and grandchildren would rise up in armed insurrection against the Crown...


In the current ongoing debate regarding the 2nd Amendment, it is important to remember it's original purpose...

to remember why the framers thought the right to arms was important enough to insert it in the Bill of Rights, just after the right to speak your mind...

and it is up to us to insure that future generations... our progeny, yours and mine... will still have the protections against the prospect of a tyrannical government afforded by the 2nd Amendment...

 

[bucs90]

Just a quick thought for our radical right wingers, most of whom worship the military, military spending and military folks, without question, blindly and at any cost whatsoever.

Our military is the best in the world, by far, not even close. Most powerful, best trained. The next best is probably like a 5 year old picking a fight with Mike Tyson.

Soo.....why do I need an assault rifle? If it is to protect me from a hypothetical tyrannical government, then I must ask:

- Which tyrannical government is gonna overthrow OUR military???

- Or, is OUR military a threat to our own people, not to be trusted?

I personally dont think our Marines, soldiers, sailors, airmen would ever follow an order to turn on our own people.

I know police cannot and would not for many reasons, mostly the fragemented concentration of power of police, broken into federal, 50 states, thousands of counties and cities. No centralized power, thus, on chance of being taken over by a single dictator or tyrannical regime. Brilliant design.



So, what is the NEED for an assault rifle? For home defense, a 12 guage shotgun and .45 pistol are far better. Anyone arguing that is a moron to be blunt. An assault rifle is for targets at distances of 50 yards and farther. Thats why it has a relatively small (5.56) but fast bullet...accuracy and velocity at distance, while the .45 and shotgun have larger, slower, but more powerful bullets- for up close and personal.

I own two assault rifles. An M4 and a semi-auto (not full auto) Yugoslavian AK. Wonderful weapons, both designed for war, and if someone invaded my home, neither would be my go-to weapon. Why? Because if that happened, it's likely (based on crime stats) to be done by 1-3 total intruders. My .45 with hollow points is a far better choice, less chance it'll penetrate a wall and hit a neighbor or family member, and my Mossberg 500 tac shotgun is an even better pick.

If a squad of North Korean infantry, say 10-15 men wearing vests, entered my home, then sure, the AK or M4 is the easy pick.

But thats not gonna happen to me. Why? Our military will NEVER allow that to happen. Ever. No nation can defeat us in a war like that to get here.

Which brings me to the question: Do you trust our beloved military to ensure you dont need that rifle? And if so...why do you need it?

Im not advocating we ban them. I own 2 myself. Im just asking why do you NEED them. I simply WANT them because they are cool. But with my nation's military, and no domestic threat a pistol and shotgun can't handle, I dont need them. And no...they aren't for sale!

Isn't Maobama enough of a factor to claim the need for an "assault Weapon". You forget that the military is control by Maobama and if he care to dictate martial law to satisfy his whims within the U.S., who will there be to protect America and Americans but ourselves.

Why do you have such a disrespectful view of our troops? They are NOT mindless robots. They have the ability to disobey an unjust order. You REALLY think our beloved troops would turn on us? I dont. I know they wouldnt.

But you think a mere 1 man can be in office, and give the order to turn on the people, and our military would just go along with it? The president could give ANY order, and they'd just follow like mindless killing machines? You dont think that...do you?

 

[Doc91678]

If I were to guess... it's fear.
Not that it's a bad thing. But fear or paranoia or the belief of required, increased security, is a relevant topic. It's the knowledge that law enforcement and the military can't be everywhere - we're too big, and those branches are too small to cover everyone in the country. Should, say, China go apeshit and invade, at some point, men and women who aren't military can and will take up their assault rifles and defend themselves.

On the border states, it might be fear that the Mexican drug cartels will push harder into the country. It's a very real and very relevant possibility to those people. I don't blame them for wanting to stock up on guns and ammo.

But for people like me, I don't have such an issue. I have 3 guns, none of which are even semi auto (pump-action, bolt-action, single action), but I personally feel that if it takes me more than 3 shots to kill a home invader, I probably deserve to die.

I have no need for an assault rifle. IMO, you're doing something very wrong if it takes you 30 shots to down a few people, unless you're in the military.

What if four people invade your home and kill your wife and children! Don't let the libtards tell you that doesn't happen cause it does.

Do you mean like things that happened to the Petit family, or to two young college students named Newsom and Christainsen?

 

[blackhawk]

I wonder if the German people ever thought their government or military would turn on them before the rise of Hitler and the Nazis?

 

[bucs90]

If I were to guess... it's fear.
Not that it's a bad thing. But fear or paranoia or the belief of required, increased security, is a relevant topic. It's the knowledge that law enforcement and the military can't be everywhere - we're too big, and those branches are too small to cover everyone in the country. Should, say, China go apeshit and invade, at some point, men and women who aren't military can and will take up their assault rifles and defend themselves.

On the border states, it might be fear that the Mexican drug cartels will push harder into the country. It's a very real and very relevant possibility to those people. I don't blame them for wanting to stock up on guns and ammo.

But for people like me, I don't have such an issue. I have 3 guns, none of which are even semi auto (pump-action, bolt-action, single action), but I personally feel that if it takes me more than 3 shots to kill a home invader, I probably deserve to die.

I have no need for an assault rifle. IMO, you're doing something very wrong if it takes you 30 shots to down a few people, unless you're in the military.

What if four people invade your home and kill your wife and children! Don't let the libtards tell you that doesn't happen cause it does.

As I said, from working before as a cop in a very dangerous city in ATL, and just raw crime stats, stuff like what you mentioned is VERY rare. The only times there are 3 or more intruders is almost 99% of the time involving drug dealers robbing each other. I dont deal drugs, so Im not worried about a large group of intruders.

But...lets play. Lets say it did happen. And 4-6 people invaded. And I have a wife and 2 kids in the house.

An AK47 or M4/AR15 bullet will GO THROUGH the person, and the walls. It will penetrate very deeply and, especially on non-hits, will go right through walls. Thus, endangering my wife and kids from MY OWN ROUNDS.

A .45 hollow point wont do that. It expands on impact, by design, and thus making it a far better (and safer) home defense weapon.

I'd love to see some links of families murdered by 4 or more intruders in which the motive was NOT drug dealers being robbed.

 

[bucs90]

I wonder if the German people ever thought their government or military would turn on them before the rise of Hitler and the Nazis?

Wow, you are sick bastard.

You just compared OUR beloved military to pre-1939 Nazi troops.

OUR TROOPS would not do that. OUR TROOPS would not do what the Nazis did.

I find it incredibly offensive that you would make that argument.

 

[bucs90]

I can easily understand why alotta folks think it's inconceivable that our government would ever become so out-of-control repressive that we, as a people, would be driven to the point where we seriously considered taking up arms in rebellion...

but who knows what the political landscape will be, say, 50 years from now...?


I 'spect that the colonial folks in 1726 wouldn't, in their wildest dreams, have been able to imagine that, 50 years hence, their children and grandchildren would rise up in armed insurrection against the Crown...


In the current ongoing debate regarding the 2nd Amendment, it is important to remember it's original purpose...

to remember why the framers thought the right to arms was important enough to insert it in the Bill of Rights, just after the right to speak your mind...

and it is up to us to insure that future generations... our progeny, yours and mine... will still have the protections against the prospect of a tyrannical government afforded by the 2nd Amendment...

One of the few sane responses who actually did what I asked: Justify WHY, rather than blabber on about nonsense.

Oh, and you did NOT compare our troops to pre1939 Nazi troops, like one right wing lunatic did.

 

[Caroljo]

Just a quick thought for our radical right wingers, most of whom worship the military, military spending and military folks, without question, blindly and at any cost whatsoever.

Our military is the best in the world, by far, not even close. Most powerful, best trained. The next best is probably like a 5 year old picking a fight with Mike Tyson.

Soo.....why do I need an assault rifle? If it is to protect me from a hypothetical tyrannical government, then I must ask:

- Which tyrannical government is gonna overthrow OUR military???

- Or, is OUR military a threat to our own people, not to be trusted?

I personally dont think our Marines, soldiers, sailors, airmen would ever follow an order to turn on our own people.

I know police cannot and would not for many reasons, mostly the fragemented concentration of power of police, broken into federal, 50 states, thousands of counties and cities. No centralized power, thus, on chance of being taken over by a single dictator or tyrannical regime. Brilliant design.



So, what is the NEED for an assault rifle? For home defense, a 12 guage shotgun and .45 pistol are far better. Anyone arguing that is a moron to be blunt. An assault rifle is for targets at distances of 50 yards and farther. Thats why it has a relatively small (5.56) but fast bullet...accuracy and velocity at distance, while the .45 and shotgun have larger, slower, but more powerful bullets- for up close and personal.

I own two assault rifles. An M4 and a semi-auto (not full auto) Yugoslavian AK. Wonderful weapons, both designed for war, and if someone invaded my home, neither would be my go-to weapon. Why? Because if that happened, it's likely (based on crime stats) to be done by 1-3 total intruders. My .45 with hollow points is a far better choice, less chance it'll penetrate a wall and hit a neighbor or family member, and my Mossberg 500 tac shotgun is an even better pick.

If a squad of North Korean infantry, say 10-15 men wearing vests, entered my home, then sure, the AK or M4 is the easy pick.

But thats not gonna happen to me. Why? Our military will NEVER allow that to happen. Ever. No nation can defeat us in a war like that to get here.

Which brings me to the question: Do you trust our beloved military to ensure you dont need that rifle? And if so...why do you need it?

Im not advocating we ban them. I own 2 myself. Im just asking why do you NEED them. I simply WANT them because they are cool. But with my nation's military, and no domestic threat a pistol and shotgun can't handle, I dont need them. And no...they aren't for sale!

Isn't Maobama enough of a factor to claim the need for an "assault Weapon". You forget that the military is control by Maobama and if he care to dictate martial law to satisfy his whims within the U.S., who will there be to protect America and Americans but ourselves.

Barry may be their "leader", but most have no respect for him. He doesn't "control" all our military, most can't stand him! My son and i talked about this a few weeks ago. He's 10 yrs in the Army, 3 times to Iraq and now is almost done training with SF (Psy Ops)...and he said there is NO WAY that the majority of the military would fight the American citizens. You might get some rogue military that would follow his orders, but if it came to fighting their own people...it wouldn't happen!

 

[Dick Tuck]

Do you understand WHAT pawns you are?
Every day you idiots that favor BANNING ALL GUNS... make decisions that have been shaped because of advertising.
You idiots are total creatures of classic Pavlovian behavior modification. "Behavior modification" first identified by Pavlov who won the Nobel Prize for physiology in 1904 has been around a long time and you "ban the guns" idiots don't seem to know that!
You make decisions like "ban the guns" based totally on politically driven advertising and media content!

YET you totally discount the role "violence" in movies and video games have triggered especially with totally pliable young minds of 20 years like Lanza! You laugh at the fact these games have molded behavior i.e. like Pavlov's dogs!
YET explain to me why with machine guns available in the early 20th century WHEN there was NOT the violence in Movies and NO video games at that time?

The NRA has been around since 1871... so how come TODAY they are vilified?

The NRA does NOT produce any movies/videos glorifying KILLING people like Tarantino's 'Django Unchained' excessive killings!
Yet the Tarantinos of movie world are glorified AND EVERY ONE of you "ban the gun" idiots support them!!!

Disgusting!!!

Why are you such a suck ass, fucking idiot? I've yet to see anyone here suggest that all guns should be banned. Is this the dog shit you feed yourself to pretend you have a sensible position? You're fucking disgusting.

As for the NRA, prior to the Cincinnati Revolt, the NRA was for sensible gun laws. Now they're a bunch of fringe loons, who think more guns will solve every problem. LaPierre's current lunacy to shit on the first amendment is about as disgusting as your support.

 

[blackhawk]

I wonder if the German people ever thought their government or military would turn on them before the rise of Hitler and the Nazis?

Wow, you are sick bastard.

You just compared OUR beloved military to pre-1939 Nazi troops.

OUR TROOPS would not do that. OUR TROOPS would not do what the Nazis did.

I find it incredibly offensive that you would make that argument.

I did no such thing I asked a question about what the German people thought possible before the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. To make a comparison I would have had to list things the that Nazi troops did and then things our military has done that are the same are comparable which I did not. If you don't know the difference between asking a question and making a comparison you are truly one stupid son of a bitch.

 

[Glensather]

\
What if four people invade your home and kill your wife and children! Don't let the libtards tell you that doesn't happen cause it does.

Step 1 would be to not stand in the open like a doucherocket.
Step 2 would be to get the wife and kids in the same room as myself.

My .357 has six shots. My shotgun has a 5-shell internal magazine. If I can't kill 4 people with 11 rounds then I'm doing something wrong.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No matter what the gun lobby says, we just don't need more guns in order to stop gun violence.

I said this in another thread but I believe it bears repeating.

No checks at gun shows or internet.

Go to WalMart. No checks there for rifles.

Terrorists on our federal lists can buy anything they want.

Domestic terrorists can buy anything they want.

Illegals can buy anything they want.

Mentally ill can buy anything they want.

Criminals can buy anything they want.

All legal.

Why do the gun nuts and the gun lobby (LaPierre) want to arm these people?

They dont. You just perpetually lie along with your other locksteppers.

 

[WillowTree]

If I were to guess... it's fear.
Not that it's a bad thing. But fear or paranoia or the belief of required, increased security, is a relevant topic. It's the knowledge that law enforcement and the military can't be everywhere - we're too big, and those branches are too small to cover everyone in the country. Should, say, China go apeshit and invade, at some point, men and women who aren't military can and will take up their assault rifles and defend themselves.

On the border states, it might be fear that the Mexican drug cartels will push harder into the country. It's a very real and very relevant possibility to those people. I don't blame them for wanting to stock up on guns and ammo.

But for people like me, I don't have such an issue. I have 3 guns, none of which are even semi auto (pump-action, bolt-action, single action), but I personally feel that if it takes me more than 3 shots to kill a home invader, I probably deserve to die.

I have no need for an assault rifle. IMO, you're doing something very wrong if it takes you 30 shots to down a few people, unless you're in the military.

What if four people invade your home and kill your wife and children! Don't let the libtards tell you that doesn't happen cause it does.

As I said, from working before as a cop in a very dangerous city in ATL, and just raw crime stats, stuff like what you mentioned is VERY rare. The only times there are 3 or more intruders is almost 99% of the time involving drug dealers robbing each other. I dont deal drugs, so Im not worried about a large group of intruders.

But...lets play. Lets say it did happen. And 4-6 people invaded. And I have a wife and 2 kids in the house.

An AK47 or M4/AR15 bullet will GO THROUGH the person, and the walls. It will penetrate very deeply and, especially on non-hits, will go right through walls. Thus, endangering my wife and kids from MY OWN ROUNDS.

A .45 hollow point wont do that. It expands on impact, by design, and thus making it a far better (and safer) home defense weapon.

I'd love to see some links of families murdered by 4 or more intruders in which the motive was NOT drug dealers being robbed.

It's no skin off my nose if you choose to just sit there and do nothing. I'm glad I married a real man.

 

[Katzndogz]

Are we arming the Syrian people to fight the government? Is the Syrian military protecting the civillians? Should there be gun control in Syria? How about Egypt?

 

[Dick Tuck]

If they ban all guns I want the Secret Service not to be able to carry any.

If they ban all guns I want the Capitol Hill Police not to be able to carry them.

Let's make it all even steven.

If joe six pack in America is denied their Second Amendment rights, then all Americans including the President and the Lawmakers have no right to their security forces carrying weapons either.

Fair is fair.

Not many people would take your lunacy seriously.

 

[Katzndogz]

Judging by the last automatic gun ban all it did was make liberals feel like they did something. There was no other effect.