What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

[hadit]

I thought people never use guns in self defense

Saving lives is rare. Now link to defenders needing a hi cap magazine.

A woman living alone faces multiple invaders in the middle of the night and you want to limit how many bullets she can fire? Perhaps give the invaders time to tackle her while she reloads?

Give examples where anyone ever needed a hi cap mag for defense. Criminals are cowards, 99.989% of defenses don't even involve shooting.

You need as many rounds as it takes to stop your attacker(s)

How do you know that will be 1 round or 20?

You don't

If we have no examples of anyone needing a hi cap mag then we can assume they are not needed. And like I said, shooting in defense is extremely rare.

You're hopeless if you refuse to believe that women living alone in bad neighborhoods face the prospect of multiple house invaders, hopeless. Now you're just being dogmatic and have left reason far behind.

 

[hadit]

Saving lives is rare. Now link to defenders needing a hi cap magazine.

A woman living alone faces multiple invaders in the middle of the night and you want to limit how many bullets she can fire? Perhaps give the invaders time to tackle her while she reloads?

Give examples where anyone ever needed a hi cap mag for defense. Criminals are cowards, 99.989% of defenses don't even involve shooting.

You need as many rounds as it takes to stop your attacker(s)

How do you know that will be 1 round or 20?

You don't

If we have no examples of anyone needing a hi cap mag then we can assume they are not needed. And like I said, shooting in defense is extremely rare.

What YOU think people need is irrelevant

And rare maybe but it still happens and it's not up to you to tell anyone what they need or don't need. If my wife thinks she needs a 9 mm with a 17 round mag then that's what she should have. Period

What are you talking about? Obviously, she only needs 1 bullet per invader. <massive eye roll>

 

[Divine Wind]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

"Style". I love it every time a member of the anti-gun left claims they want to ban all guns of a military "style".

These two guns are both actual military weapons in my possession. Thanks for revealing you want to ban them.

 

[hadit]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

"Style". I love it every time a member of the anti-gun left claims they want to ban all guns of a military "style".

These two guns are both actual military weapons in my possession. Thanks for revealing you want to ban them.

What they want to ban always boils down to "big, black and scary looking". Heck, paint an AR-15 pink and the pressure to ban evaporates.

 

[Divine Wind]

The real question is why shouldn't a lawful american citizen be able to own a semi automatic rifle, which is the proper name for an "Assault weapon".

You read the article about the family of the AR 15 designer who said that their father (designer/builder of AR 15s) had zero intention of it being a weapon for civilians.

How about that?

A LW meme AKA LW lie. Eugene Stoner designed the Armalite AR-10 to replace the M-1 Garand. The M-14 was chosen over the AR-10. Later, Stoner's design was downsized to carry the much smaller 5.56mm cartridge and, IAW Armalite policy, renamed the AR-15 for "Armalite Rifle #15". If was full auto and not designed for civilian use because it was full auto. Colt bought the rights from Armalite, renamed it the M-16, still full auto, and sold it to the US military. Years later, Colt made a sem-auto version for the civilian market and, since they owned the rights to the name "AR-15", sold it as the AR-15 to differentiate it from the full auto M-16.

 

[Divine Wind]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

"Style". I love it every time a member of the anti-gun left claims they want to ban all guns of a military "style".

These two guns are both actual military weapons in my possession. Thanks for revealing you want to ban them.

What they want to ban always boils down to "big, black and scary looking". Heck, paint an AR-15 pink and the pressure to ban evaporates.

Like this?

 

[hadit]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

"Style". I love it every time a member of the anti-gun left claims they want to ban all guns of a military "style".

These two guns are both actual military weapons in my possession. Thanks for revealing you want to ban them.

What they want to ban always boils down to "big, black and scary looking". Heck, paint an AR-15 pink and the pressure to ban evaporates.

Like this?

Yup. Show that to the Congresscritters and they would think, "oh, how cute", instead of cowering in fear.

 

[emilynghiem]

'Need' is relative. A sense of insecurity is, too. When one's self image is shaky, a serious looking weapon that impresses the other boys might compensate.
Any auto-load hunting rifle is just as deadly, but that wooden stock and checkered grip! Not manly enough.

Dear there4eyeM
Then try selling this to the LGBT lobby saying that it is necessary
for Transgender people to have their choice of bathroom policy to feel safe and not discriminated against
but it is not okay for other people to have their choice of bathroom policy to feel safe and not excluded either.

That is not the topic here.
It isn't for me to sell anything to so-called LGBT folks.
'Transgender' is not 'my war'. It is, to me, more of a symptom of how divorced social upbringing is from instilling in offspring the things that are important about existence and life.
Bathrooms are in homes; toilets are in public facilities.

Then make all Public facilities gender neutral there4eyeM That doesnt discriminate against anyone but serves all needs and beliefs equally, instead of protecting one set while penalizing or excluding another.

As for the OP, defending Koreatown during the LA riots, when the police were instructed not to respond to calls for help until the next day, is enough of an example to show where AR rifles were necessary to deter mass mob violence looting rioting and killing, were used lawfully to save lives and property and weren't stolen and abused by criminals against the owners.

If you want to get back on topic that argument is easier to win. I only argued about needs being relative because that was brought up, but wasn't being applied consistently due to relativity.

 

[NOLA Gator]

emilynghiem & Devine.wind - Thank you for you service!

 

[nat4900]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

 

[Divine Wind]

Why are so many LWers so hateful and have anger issues?

 

[there4eyeM]

'Need' is relative. A sense of insecurity is, too. When one's self image is shaky, a serious looking weapon that impresses the other boys might compensate.
Any auto-load hunting rifle is just as deadly, but that wooden stock and checkered grip! Not manly enough.

Dear there4eyeM
Then try selling this to the LGBT lobby saying that it is necessary
for Transgender people to have their choice of bathroom policy to feel safe and not discriminated against
but it is not okay for other people to have their choice of bathroom policy to feel safe and not excluded either.

That is not the topic here.
It isn't for me to sell anything to so-called LGBT folks.
'Transgender' is not 'my war'. It is, to me, more of a symptom of how divorced social upbringing is from instilling in offspring the things that are important about existence and life.
Bathrooms are in homes; toilets are in public facilities.

Then make all Public facilities gender neutral there4eyeM That doesnt discriminate against anyone but serves all needs and beliefs equally, instead of protecting one set while penalizing or excluding another.

As for the OP, defending Koreatown during the LA riots, when the police were instructed not to respond to calls for help until the next day, is enough of an example to show where AR rifles were necessary to deter mass mob violence looting rioting and killing, were used lawfully to save lives and property and weren't stolen and abused by criminals against the owners.

If you want to get back on topic that argument is easier to win. I only argued about needs being relative because that was brought up, but wasn't being applied consistently due to relativity.

Not sure why you directed this to me; I was among the first (at least that I saw here) to suggest exactly that; single, one-at-a-time, gender-neutral 'facilities'.

To all concerned; there4eyeM is in no camp, is not right or left, is not in the middle, is subject to change without notice, is to be taken with the broadest sense of meaning.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

'Need' is relative. A sense of insecurity is, too. When one's self image is shaky, a serious looking weapon that impresses the other boys might compensate.
Any auto-load hunting rifle is just as deadly, but that wooden stock and checkered grip! Not manly enough.

Dear there4eyeM
Then try selling this to the LGBT lobby saying that it is necessary
for Transgender people to have their choice of bathroom policy to feel safe and not discriminated against
but it is not okay for other people to have their choice of bathroom policy to feel safe and not excluded either.

That is not the topic here.
It isn't for me to sell anything to so-called LGBT folks.
'Transgender' is not 'my war'. It is, to me, more of a symptom of how divorced social upbringing is from instilling in offspring the things that are important about existence and life.
Bathrooms are in homes; toilets are in public facilities.

Then make all Public facilities gender neutral there4eyeM That doesnt discriminate against anyone but serves all needs and beliefs equally, instead of protecting one set while penalizing or excluding another.

As for the OP, defending Koreatown during the LA riots, when the police were instructed not to respond to calls for help until the next day, is enough of an example to show where AR rifles were necessary to deter mass mob violence looting rioting and killing, were used lawfully to save lives and property and weren't stolen and abused by criminals against the owners.

If you want to get back on topic that argument is easier to win. I only argued about needs being relative because that was brought up, but wasn't being applied consistently due to relativity.

Not sure why you directed this to me; I was among the first (at least that I saw here) to suggest exactly that; single, one-at-a-time, gender-neutral 'facilities'.

To all concerned; there4eyeM is in no camp, is not right or left, is not in the middle, is subject to change without notice, is to be taken with the broadest sense of meaning.

Socialism is to make believe that there is no difference between people. If that is the case, why do the Clintons have over $150,000,000, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet billions of dollars, Pro athletes make millions? Because in LIFE, we are given God given talents, and we in the US were(notice the word were) given freedom to use those talents to each persons best of his/her(not IT) ability. With you libidiots, you take those freedoms away, victimize those who are too lazy to work, give them just enough to survive, and then call the rest of US racists who fight against you establishment pukes.

 

[there4eyeM]

'You' don't have the comprehension skills to know who I am, so you are ridiculous in this address to the quoted post.

 

[Campbell]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

The NRA has one mission.....to sell more weapons for the gun industry!

 

[Campbell]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

View attachment 79297

LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Wilbur Right]

Years later, Colt made a sem-auto version for the civilian market and, since they owned the rights to the name "AR-15", sold it as the AR-15 to differentiate it from the full auto M-16.

People buy the AR15 BECAUSE it is the closest thing they can buy to an M16.

If people could buy the M16, the AR wouldn't be nearly as popular.

What is the demographic of an AR15 buyer?

 

[Skull Pilot]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

The NRA has one mission.....to sell more weapons for the gun industry!

You know I am not the kind of guy who joins groups and political organizations but for the first time in my life I am thinking about becoming a member of the NRA and it's really just because all you people here who think you have the right to tell other people what to do can't stand the NRA

 

[Chuz Life]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

The NRA has one mission.....to sell more weapons for the gun industry!

You know I am not the kind of guy who joins groups and political organizations but for the first time in my life I am thinking about becoming a member of the NRA and it's really just because all you people here who think you have the right to tell other people what to do can't stand the NRA

Here here.