CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

[NotfooledbyW]

Bad people have them...

Thanks to you and the NRA. If Manufacturers could never legally make them, bad people Wouldn't have access to millions.

Why are bad highly armed, dangerous bad people coming for you? What did you do?

 

[Flash]

The "need" is articulated very well in the Second Amendment to the Constitution; "necessary to the security of a free state".

Any more questions?

 

[froggy]

Because I can

 

[Soupnazi630]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because the average soldier marine and cop needs one and they are a much greater threat to me than I am to them.

 

[Rambunctious]

Thanks to you and the NRA. If Manufacturers could never legally make them, bad people Wouldn't have access to millions.

Why are bad highly armed, dangerous bad people coming for you? What did you do?

A fully automatic rifle can be made in a garage so bad people will always have access to them...don't blame me or the NRA...and the same people "coming for me" are coming for you....we have a building in Manhattan called the freedom tower to remind us so we don't forget...

 

[ding]

Because peaceable law abiding citizens who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms in defense of their country should be armed and trained with the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess.

And today that would be semi-automatic rifles and pistols with high capacity magazines.

 

[fncceo]

Which question have I asked that you feel is a leading question? Just tell me why you need an assault rifle

I don't own an 'assault rifle' ... I do own more than one semi-automatic rifle.

OK, we're getting someplace. Why do you need those?

Ah ... ok. If you’re asking about something I actually own then it’s a very simple answer.

None of your frackin business

That means you don't even know yourself.

Interpret that however you like.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have the answer to the OP:

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because

Bad people have them....

So you think an arms race on American streets is a perfectly acceptable situation?

No...but it is the situation we are in isn't it?

If not those who understand it is a problem can convince the media nority that their guns aren't going to be taken away. Their arsenals can no longer be expanded, but they can keep what they have.

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because the average soldier marine and cop needs one and they are a much greater threat to me than I am to them.

Have any military personnel established a beachhead on your front lawn?

 

[fncceo]

So you think an arms race on American streets is a perfectly acceptable situation?

Better than drag race on American streets...

 

[flacaltenn]

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

What weapons are those? VA Tech shooter used handguns. Oswald used a single shot carbine.

 

[Nosmo King]

So you think an arms race on American streets is a perfectly acceptable situation?

Better than drag racing on American streets...

I. Don't think gun play and drag racing really occupy the same level of mass concern.

Our streets are too pocked up with potholes to afford a decent race. Instead, the hillbillies race their ATVs through the woods. That way they are the only ones visiting the ER.

 

[flacaltenn]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

REALLY? Rate of fire? Capacity?? THESE lever action rifles were around since the Wild West shows. Wanna see what they can do??

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

What weapons are those? VA Tech shooter used handguns. Oswald used a single shot carbine. So did the DC sniper but a more refined version.

Columbine, Aurora, Las Vegas, Ft. Hood, Sutherland Springs, Orlando, Parkland, Newtown...

 

[Nosmo King]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

REALLY? Rate of fire? Capacity?? THESE lever action rifles were around since the Wild West shows. Wanna see what they can do??

Do you want to bog down debate in semantics, or can you accept a generic term used in common parlance?

My guess is bog down.

 

[flacaltenn]

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

What weapons are those? VA Tech shooter used handguns. Oswald used a single shot carbine. So did the DC sniper but a more refined version.

Columbine, Aurora, Las Vegas, Ft. Hood, Sutherland Springs, Orlando, Parkland, Newtown...

Sutherland Springs was STOPPED by a civilian with an AR-15.. Guy in Las Vegas needed 5 or more of them because he literally BURNED UP 3 of them because of his trick bump stock.. Ft. HOOD?? semi-auto handgun... You see a pattern?? Not really...

Columbine -- sawed off illegal as hell shotguns, handguns and a "non assault" semi auto rifle.

Dylan -- Intratec TEC-DC9 (9-mm semi-automatic handgun) attached to a strap slung over his shoulder (under coat), Savage 311-D 12-gauge double-barrel shotgun (barrel sawed down to approximately 23 inches, initially half-hidden in Dylan's cargos).

Eric -- 10-shot Hi-Point model 995 carbine rifle on a strap (under coat), Savage-Springfield 67H 12-gauge pump shotgun he called 'Arlene' (named after a Doom character - initially in one of the duffels carried to the top of the grassy knoll -- stock and barrel sawed off, reducing the entire gun to 26 inches).

The sawed-off weapons, each around 30 years old, were so short that firing repeatedly from them caused the hands of the gunmen to bleed when fired on the practice range initially. The teens apparently acclimatized to the weapons over the months preceding the shootings. Both shooters also carried several knives. They named their pipe bombs. Four bombs are mentioned on Eric's website, along with their specs. 'Vengeance' (pictured at bottom) and 'Atlanta' were found at the Klebold residence when police searched it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

REALLY? Rate of fire? Capacity?? THESE lever action rifles were around since the Wild West shows. Wanna see what they can do??

Do you want to bog down debate in semantics, or can you accept a generic term used in common parlance?

My guess is bog down.

I just showed you RATE and capacity on a 100 year old Old West design. THat's NOT semantics.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Dale,

An emoticon is not an argument.

And an emoticon isn't something someone living off the grid would be familiar with. For example, the Amish rarely use a smiley face in retort.

Oh, they use a smiley face all right! They smile at you with their face!

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

REALLY? Rate of fire? Capacity?? THESE lever action rifles were around since the Wild West shows. Wanna see what they can do??

Do you want to bog down debate in semantics, or can you accept a generic term used in common parlance?

My guess is bog down.

I just showed you RATE and capacity on a 100 year old Old West design. THat's NOT semantics.

Would you agree to ANY restrictions on ANY type of firearm if that restriction meant there may be fewer gun assaults? Would you agree that there are weapons on our streets that simply do not belong in the hands of citizens without registration or extra liability insurance or certification of competence?