Why would anyone need an assault weapon?

[punkndisorderly]

I tend to boil it down to this. Evil people do evil things. Crazy people do crazy things. Anything not aimed at locking up the evil or treating the mentally ill does nothing.

If your goal is to make everyone safer, it has to address that. Anything else simply puts restrictions on those who were no threat to you to begin with. If that is your real goal, to make things more difficult for law abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners, we have nothing to talk about.

[canvasbck]

I tend to boil it down to this. Evil people do evil things. Crazy people do crazy things. Anything not aimed at locking up the evil or treating the mentally ill does nothing.

If your goal is to make everyone safer, it has to address that. Anything else simply puts restrictions on those who were no threat to you to begin with. If that is your real goal, to make things more difficult for law abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners, we have nothing to talk about.

This was one of the questions that Romney blew it on in the second debate. The lady asked him "How would you plan to keep dangerous weapons such as AK47's out of the hands of criminals?"

He blathered on for a while when he could have just said "It's simple, put the criminals in prison. It's almost impossible for an inmate to get his hands on an AK47"

[LSUTiger]

I agree with TAM and what others have said, I was writing up something on this topic when I saw it had already been posted. So in my previous posting on this thread, I make some of the same arguments.

But also, we should not only be making valid but less meaningful arguments such as guns vs. cars etc. etc. Instead we should alway start off with making arguments that clearly state the real reason for why we need semiautomatic rifles with standard 30 rd magazines and why the 2nd Amendment exists at all. We need to have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny (1. government-foreign or domestic, 2. criminals-self defense). To do that we need to have at least what the tyranical oppressors (military and police) have.

Answers like "because I can" and the "the 2A gives me the right" are not good enough, the liberals will alway side step the real argument-oppose tyranny/self defense with the hunting one, Its the only one they can sell to the other useful idiots. Let's get down to the heart of the matter. To often the hunting arguments are being used. Its the wrong argument. I have never needed 30 rds for hunting, some may, but I haven't. But I bet they sure come in handy when fighting for real, not that I have had to experience that.

[LSUTiger]

Just had a thought, I guess the reason more people don't use the real reason for the 2A and "assault weapons" is not to further alarm the anti's so they can call us terrorists.

Carry on.

[Kythas]

But also, we should not only be making valid but less meaningful arguments such as guns vs. cars etc. etc. Instead we should alway start off with making arguments that clearly state the real reason for why we need semiautomatic rifles with standard 30 rd magazines and why the 2nd Amendment exists at all. We need to have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny (1. government-foreign or domestic, 2. criminals-self defense). To do that we need to have at least what the tyranical oppressors (military and police) have.

When I make this argument, I'm invariably countered with "Your AR-15 won't do you any good against a tank or a jet, so it's worthless anyway."

My counter to this is that they are apparently not paying attention to the difficulties we're having in Afghanistan, or had in Iraq, or had obviously missed the American History segment on Vietnam.

[VMI77]

But also, we should not only be making valid but less meaningful arguments such as guns vs. cars etc. etc. Instead we should alway start off with making arguments that clearly state the real reason for why we need semiautomatic rifles with standard 30 rd magazines and why the 2nd Amendment exists at all. We need to have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny (1. government-foreign or domestic, 2. criminals-self defense). To do that we need to have at least what the tyranical oppressors (military and police) have.

When I make this argument, I'm invariably countered with "Your AR-15 won't do you any good against a tank or a jet, so it's worthless anyway."

My counter to this is that they are apparently not paying attention to the difficulties we're having in Afghanistan, or had in Iraq, or had obviously missed the American History segment on Vietnam.

Cite The Battle of Athens (TN).

[LSUTiger]

Today’s technology makes small arms irrelavent

Wrong. Time and time again, in conflicts worldwide, it is proven that freedom fighting forces armed with small arms like semi-automatic rifle and standard capacity magazines often have great success against the most technologically advanced militaries.

At the end of the day, a person standing on a piece of ground with a gun in hand owns that piece of ground until he is removed and another person with a gun in hand overcomes him and stands in his place. Infantry is the backbone of any army. Wars cannot be won with technology alone. The biggest force in the world is perhaps the armed Citizenry of the USA.

Also, don’t rule out that members of our Armed Forces and Law Enforcement are Citizens too! Most will not bring to bear the might of deadly technology on their own people. They value freedom and liberty as much as the civilian population and are sworn to protect and uphold the constitution not some heck bent misguided evil politicians or the president. Most will side with the people.

Enslavement will be achieved by those with guns who are against us.
Freedom will was gained and will be preserved by those with guns who are for us.

Yes, I agree. I also pointed that out in my original post. I guess it was too long and people skipped over it. LOL

[anygunanywhere]

But also, we should not only be making valid but less meaningful arguments such as guns vs. cars etc. etc. Instead we should alway start off with making arguments that clearly state the real reason for why we need semiautomatic rifles with standard 30 rd magazines and why the 2nd Amendment exists at all. We need to have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny (1. government-foreign or domestic, 2. criminals-self defense). To do that we need to have at least what the tyranical oppressors (military and police) have.

When I make this argument, I'm invariably countered with "Your AR-15 won't do you any good against a tank or a jet, so it's worthless anyway."

My counter to this is that they are apparently not paying attention to the difficulties we're having in Afghanistan, or had in Iraq, or had obviously missed the American History segment on Vietnam.

They have to get out of the jet or tank every now and then to gas up.

For every one tank or jet driver there are a bunch of support people on the ground.

I'm just sayin'.

Anygunanywhere

[Kythas]

Cite The Battle of Athens (TN).

Regarding the Battle of Athens, here is an opinion piece written by Eleanor Roosevelt about it. I think she understands things pretty well, and certain people should heed her words.

McMinn A Warning — By Eleanor Roosevelt

New York, Monday — After any war, the use of force throughout the world is almost taken for granted. Men involved in the war have been trained to use force, and they have discovered that, when you want something, you can take it. The return to peacetime methods governed by law and persuasion is usually difficult.

We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life, freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn County, Tennessee, which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a political machine does not allow the people free expression, then freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which their government functions.

In this particular case, a group of young veterans organized to oust the local machine and elect their own slate in the primary. We may deplore the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this incident points for us all. When the majority of the people know what they want, they will obtain it.

Any local, state or national government, or any political machine, in order to live, must give the people assurance that they can express their will freely and that their votes will be counted. The most powerful machine cannot exist without the support of the people. Political bosses and political machinery can be good, but the minute they cease to express the will of the people, their days are numbered.

This is a lesson which wise political leaders learn young, and you can be pretty sure that, when a boss stays in power, he gives the majority of the people what they think they want. If he is bad and indulges in practices which are dishonest, or if he acts for his own interests alone, the people are unwilling to condone these practices.

When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or country must change, they will change them. If the leadership has been wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which was taken in Tennessee.

If we want to continue to be a mature people who, at home and abroad, settle our difficulties peacefully and not through the use of force, then we will take to heart this lesson and we will jealously guard our rights. What goes on before an election, the threats or persuasion by political leaders, may be bad but it cannot prevent the people from really registering their will if they wish to.

The decisive action which has just occurred in our midst is a warning, and one which we cannot afford to overlook.

[Dragonfighter]

TAM, the Founding Fathers were indeed some highly intelligent folks who had a knack for looking to the future, even if they couldn't understand technologically how a thing could be done. I recently came across this quote in a book about WWII paratroopers...

Where is the Prince who can afford so to cover his country with troops for its defense, as that ten thousand men descending from the clouds may not in many places do an infinite deal of mischief, before a force could be brought together to repel them?---Benjamin Franklin

This quote is emblazoned on a huge arching sign at Fort Benning's Airborne School. However, it was explained to me that balloons ( December 14, 1782 by the Montgolfier brothers) were what he was referring to. Same concept though.

[philip964]

Betcha those BP workers wished they had been allowed to have an assault weapon.

Haven't checked into whether Algeria has banned assault weapons all together or whether assault weapons are permitted to be carried or owned by foreigners. But I betcha they were illegal for them to have. Plus even if they were allowed, probably no legal way for them to get them from the US to Algeria.

[anygunanywhere]

Betcha those BP workers wished they had been allowed to have an assault weapon.

Haven't checked into whether Algeria has banned assault weapons all together or whether assault weapons are permitted to be carried or owned by foreigners. But I betcha they were illegal for them to have. Plus even if they were allowed, probably no legal way for them to get them from the US to Algeria.

My employer has a helium facility in Algeria. I have never beenthere as I work in a different division.

From what I have been told by those who have worked there you live and work in a man camp guarded by what they said was Algerian military armed with automatic weapons. I am pretty sure they would frown on in-pats having weapons.

Anygunanywhere

[Kythas]

Betcha those BP workers wished they had been allowed to have an assault weapon.

Haven't checked into whether Algeria has banned assault weapons all together or whether assault weapons are permitted to be carried or owned by foreigners. But I betcha they were illegal for them to have. Plus even if they were allowed, probably no legal way for them to get them from the US to Algeria.

You can't carry in a refinery here in Texas. You can't even have a gun in your car at work if you work for a refinery.

[canvasbck]

Betcha those BP workers wished they had been allowed to have an assault weapon.

Haven't checked into whether Algeria has banned assault weapons all together or whether assault weapons are permitted to be carried or owned by foreigners. But I betcha they were illegal for them to have. Plus even if they were allowed, probably no legal way for them to get them from the US to Algeria.

You can't carry in a refinery here in Texas. You can't even have a gun in your car at work if you work for a refinery.

Not true. If you work (direct employee) for a refinery, have a CHL, and the parking lot is outside the secure area of the plant, you can have a firearm locked in your vehicle.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

Because if I kept a cop in my gun safe like I do my AR they'd throw me in jail.