Assault rifles for self defense

[healthmyths]

Almost every one of the 132,656 K-12 schools (by law in most!) in the USA have one..

and no one disagrees they are benign when sitting and needed when there is a fire!
But how often are they used?

And school personnel are trained in the use.

So why not a gun? A rifle? Used by a school personnel TRAINED would have saved possible all if not some of the 26 Newtowners from death!

Just listened to Wayne LaPierre of NRA and he pointed out we have NO problem with Secret Service having guns to protect the President.
Guns with security guards on armored cars...

But a trained person with a gun in schools??
Why is that so wrong?


NRA weighs in following Newtown

You're a retard.

IDiOT then Bill Clinton is a RETARD TOO!!!
REMEMBER THIS???
Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and
"in our national struggle against youth violence we must not fail our children; our future depends on it," the president said in his weekly radio address.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323

 

[GuyPinestra]

OP could find examples of that on the Internet very easily, but he won't because:

1. It will conflict with his preconceived notions.
2. Takes away valuable time from surfing porn sites.
3. He's lazy.

Stephens sheriff: Resident shot one of four home invaders » Anderson Independent Mail

All of the above...

 

[daveman]

Assault rifles for self defense -

Real world examples of this happening in the U.S. when the person using the weapon for self defense is -

1. Not acting as a government agent nor using a weapon issued to him/her by the government
2. Not acting as a trained private security guard.
3. Not defending a criminal enterprise.

Any?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UBe48u6ERiI]15 Year Old Houston Boy Uses AR-15 To Shoot Home Invasion Suspect - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DuhKCiY-lu0]Armed Homeowner Shoots Robbers During Daytime Invasion (AZ) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[GuyPinestra]

Try this one.
Son Uses Dad’s AR-15 To Defend Home
Son Uses Dad’s AR-15 To Defend Home (2010) | Guns Save Lives

You did just ask for one, right? Question answered.

one example... not too bad.

now lets compare that against the mass shootings involving guns:

Josh Sugarmann: 10 U.S. Mass Shootings Involving High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines (Slide Show)

List of rampage killers: Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just wanted to point out that 8 of your 10 examples in your Sugarmann link were PISTOLS. I'm sure someone else has pointed this out in the last 35 pages, but I had to 'just in case'.

"Just in case..."

The same reason I own smoke detectors, car insurance, food storage and guns.

 

[chikenwing]

Look...a normal pump shotgun works just fine here in rural Florida for stopping a maurauding 200 pound wild boar. No one needs to drag out an AR-15 for instant pulled pork.

There is no need for shredded human flesh from assault rifles, either.

Regards from Rosie

double aught buck shot will shred you way worse than a 223 round or two.

If that guy had used it instead they would be just as dead and a lot more mess.

Your logic has holes.

 

[GuyPinestra]

the right to free speech is no absolute. you cannot yell fire in a crowded room and call it free speech. there are also bans against hate speech. so there are in fact rules in place already that limit free speech, so why can't the same been done for fire arms?

Sure you can!

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bans on 'hate' speech have ONLY happened from the misapplied words of SCJ Oliver Wendell Holmes. Taken in it's context, Holmes' remarks simply provide that the courts be the proper venue for redress. It doesn't say squat about it being 'illegal'.

IOW, you could get sued for any 'damages' ... Tort law, not criminal.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find an actual law on the books that says "Yelling fire in a crowded theater shall be classified as a felony/misdemeanor punishable by (X)..."

 

[JimH52]

The NRA is losing on this one. No one needs 100 round clips to defend their home, nor does a hunter need 100 round clips to bag game.

The assualt rifle is named appropriately. It is used for "Assault." If the NRA wins again with their well paid lobbiest, the school shootings will continue. More kids will die, because the NRA will defend assualt rifles. Their mantra is, "Blame anyone or anything but us."

 

[bayoubill]

Never say never.

One Word.

Waco:

point of order: the Waco siege wasn't carried out by regular US armed forces...

but rather by an entirely separate armed wing of the US government... the FBI...


which, btw, now that I think about it, sorta reminds me of the stuff I described in a post I made earlier...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-you-need-an-assault-rifle-2.html#post6539106

Ah, Waco is a great argument. And once again, this is among the few sane arguments anyone has posted on this thread.

So...Waco. Yep, the Feds have turned many of their agencies into paramilitary type groups, with tanks, assault rifles, high level tactical training. BUT...so have local and state SWAT teams. Nothing new there. As society becomes more globalized and dangerous, the Andy Griffith style of policing is gonna fade away.

So, you bring up a very interesting argument. Our miltary, in my opinion, would NEVER turn on the people. And, I dont think local and state police (as a whole, not regarding the bad apple individuals) would either.

But the massive Federal agencies? They are huge, well funded, well trained, well armed. But...those are humans also. THey have families, friends, etc, in the community. They have kids in the same schools we do. But unlike the military, they can act on US soil without martial law, and they supercede the local and state cops, who would likely be far more emotionally tied to the local people.

I personally dont think the FBI, ATF, DEA, etc, are wicked agencies full of evil men. Most are former local cops who applied. I do think they have corrupt politicians directing them, and sometimes they may be doing what they THINK is a noble action, but behind covers of bullshit there are higher-ups with bad motives.

And that is one legit argument. Not to "fight back", but to simply have a well armed population, so that those honest men and women of the Federal Law Enforcement agencies ONLY act on causes they really believe are for the good of the country, because there is always the chance of a Waco happening, and if it does, it better be a worthy cause.

Prevent beaurocratic bullying perhaps?

Which is why no one will EVER confiscate our guns. Ever. The military wont do it. The cops wont do it. Never gonna happen.

If, at some point in the future, a directive was handed down by the Attorney General (at the behest of the President, with the legislative backing of a compliant Congress, and with the judicial backing of a Supreme Court that refused to honor the intention of the 2nd Amendment), you don't think the FBI, with a list of registered gun owners in hand, would storm the houses of those same gun owners in order to confiscate their arms...?

btw... it would, of course, all be justified as having been done for "the good of the people"...

and, given the way the federal government does things, there'd prolly be some sort of oxymoronic title to the whole thing... like mebbe "The 2036 Safe-In-Our-Homes Measure..."

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Never say never.

One Word.

Waco:

Yep, there are religious suicide cults out there. Nothing new.

Fuck, you're stupid!! You should actually bone up on the 'Siege at Waco' and learn a little more than what was broadcast to you by the MSM.

Fucking simpleton!!!

 

[daveman]

The NRA is losing on this one. No one needs 100 round clips to defend their home, nor does a hunter need 100 round clips to bag game.

The assualt rifle is named appropriately. It is used for "Assault." If the NRA wins again with their well paid lobbiest, the school shootings will continue. More kids will die, because the NRA will defend assualt rifles. Their mantra is, "Blame anyone or anything but us."

Funny, considering you want to blame anyone or anything but the criminal who does the shooting.

As far as magazine size restrictions, that's utterly pointless.

Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You… « Kontradictions

The strongest focus by gun control advocates in the wake of various shootings has been a return to these limits on magazine size.[7] (During Carol McCarthy’s question-avoidance in the above video, notice that her stump speech is an assertion of the importance of banning high capacity magazines. This has been duplicated on countless news and talk programs, blogs and websites, especially those that lean politically to the Left[8].) The idea is that if mass shooters have larger magazines, they will be able to kill more people before police or an armed citizen can intervene.

Keeping in mind the statistical rarity and relatively tiny death toll of mass shootings to begin with, is this true? Will high capacity bans lower the number of people killed in mass shootings? All we have to do is look at one of the deadliest shootings in the world: the Virginia Tech massacre.

With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn’t need any massive magazines or custom weapons. The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can’t lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn’t matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized.​

 

[GuyPinestra]

The NRA is losing on this one. No one needs 100 round clips to defend their home, nor does a hunter need 100 round clips to bag game.

The assualt rifle is named appropriately. It is used for "Assault." If the NRA wins again with their well paid lobbiest, the school shootings will continue. More kids will die, because the NRA will defend assualt rifles. Their mantra is, "Blame anyone or anything but us."

You gun grabbers display your ignorance about guns in almost EVERY word you utter!

You don't even know the difference between a 'clip' and a 'magazine'.

And 100 round MAGAZINES are notoriously unreliable. Anyone wanting to shoot that many rounds would prefer 3 or 4 30 rounders...

 

[boedicca]

Assault rifles for self defense -

Real world examples of this happening in the U.S. when the person using the weapon for self defense is -

1. Not acting as a government agent nor using a weapon issued to him/her by the government
2. Not acting as a trained private security guard.
3. Not defending a criminal enterprise.

Any?

I call shenanigans.

I bet you cannot coherently describe what an Assault Rifle is and how it is differentiated from a Non-Assault Rifle.

 

[GuyPinestra]

point of order: the Waco siege wasn't carried out by regular US armed forces...

but rather by an entirely separate armed wing of the US government... the FBI...


which, btw, now that I think about it, sorta reminds me of the stuff I described in a post I made earlier...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-you-need-an-assault-rifle-2.html#post6539106

Ah, Waco is a great argument. And once again, this is among the few sane arguments anyone has posted on this thread.

So...Waco. Yep, the Feds have turned many of their agencies into paramilitary type groups, with tanks, assault rifles, high level tactical training. BUT...so have local and state SWAT teams. Nothing new there. As society becomes more globalized and dangerous, the Andy Griffith style of policing is gonna fade away.

So, you bring up a very interesting argument. Our miltary, in my opinion, would NEVER turn on the people. And, I dont think local and state police (as a whole, not regarding the bad apple individuals) would either.

But the massive Federal agencies? They are huge, well funded, well trained, well armed. But...those are humans also. THey have families, friends, etc, in the community. They have kids in the same schools we do. But unlike the military, they can act on US soil without martial law, and they supercede the local and state cops, who would likely be far more emotionally tied to the local people.

I personally dont think the FBI, ATF, DEA, etc, are wicked agencies full of evil men. Most are former local cops who applied. I do think they have corrupt politicians directing them, and sometimes they may be doing what they THINK is a noble action, but behind covers of bullshit there are higher-ups with bad motives.

And that is one legit argument. Not to "fight back", but to simply have a well armed population, so that those honest men and women of the Federal Law Enforcement agencies ONLY act on causes they really believe are for the good of the country, because there is always the chance of a Waco happening, and if it does, it better be a worthy cause.

Prevent beaurocratic bullying perhaps?

Which is why no one will EVER confiscate our guns. Ever. The military wont do it. The cops wont do it. Never gonna happen.

If, at some point in the future, a directive was handed down by the Attorney General (at the behest of the President, with the legislative backing of a compliant Congress, and with the judicial backing of a Supreme Court that refused to honor the intention of the 2nd Amendment), you don't think the FBI, with a list of registered gun owners in hand, would storm the houses of those same gun owners in order to confiscate their arms...?

btw... it would, of course, all be justified as having been done for "the good of the people"...

and, given the way the federal government does things, there'd prolly be some sort of oxymoronic title to the whole thing... like "The 2036 Safe-In-Our-Homes Measure..."

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to bayoubill again.

.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I find it fascinating that the left cannot have a discussion with those of opposing opinions without attaching some kind of label. Mutters, wing nuts, gun nuts. Extremists, etc etc.

Personally, I could give a shit about what you find fascinating.

 

[daveman]

Assault rifles for self defense -

Real world examples of this happening in the U.S. when the person using the weapon for self defense is -

1. Not acting as a government agent nor using a weapon issued to him/her by the government
2. Not acting as a trained private security guard.
3. Not defending a criminal enterprise.

Any?

I call shenanigans.

I bet you cannot coherently describe what an Assault Rifle is and how it is differentiated from a Non-Assault Rifle.

 

[bripat9643]

Thats kind of what Im asking. I bought those 2 guns because it was legal to buy them, I enjoy recreational shooting, and I wanted them. But if they were illegal, I'd never consider buying one illegally. I dont need them. I just wanted them. And...I am very paranoid about safety. I of course keep them in a gun safe. But I keep the magazines and ammo in a storage unit, with other shit like an old couch, etc. Just so those weapons and those mags aren't in the same place to be accessed or stolen by anyone but me.

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.

Yeah, It's not like a democracy has ever become a dictatorship. and it's not like the military of any country has ever fired on civilians. How could anyone believe an inconceivable thing like that might happen?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. Military ordinance is exactly the kind of gun every family needs to own. that's the kind the 2nd amendment is specifically intended to protect.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Simply look at the history of how the military has behaved when dictators assumed power in other countries. Generally, they fall right in line and do as they are ordered.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wishful thinking. They might not do it tomorrow, but who knows how things will be after 20 years of Obama rule? In most cases the military does as it is ordered, even after a coup. Most men of military age aren't able to think for themselves. That's why the government drafts men of that age.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

That may be true today, but who knows what they will do after 20 years of Obama rule. A lot of the military voted for Obama.