Assault rifles for self defense

[skookerasbil]

Home invasions? That's why you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? It's not to protect your First Amendment rights from a government that runs remote-controlled aerial assassinations on anyone that it deems "inconvenient" to corporate goals?

If you honestly cite the Second Amendment as your right to own an assault rifle to protect your television and jewelry, then you don't understand what the Second Amendment is for.

Too bad. We like the option and nobody is taking it away by the way!!!


You stick with your gay home defense system!!! Good luck!!!







kewl

 

[WinterBorn]

Home invasions? That's why you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? It's not to protect your First Amendment rights from a government that runs remote-controlled aerial assassinations on anyone that it deems "inconvenient" to corporate goals?

If you honestly cite the Second Amendment as your right to own an assault rifle to protect your television and jewelry, then you don't understand what the Second Amendment is for.

If you honestly think I defend my home because of my television or jewelry, you do not understand the concept of the sanctity of my home.

Ever had your home broken into? It is not the belongings taken that keeps you up nights. It is the violation of the sanctity and safety of my home. That is why I will use deadly force.

 

[1776]

Once they are done taking away our guns....they will move on to knives, etc.

 

[Iceweasel]

That being said,the shotgun sits beside the bed and the AR is in the safe.
The main reason being I dont have to lock the shotgun up when I leave the house. And I sure as hell ain't leaving forty five hundred worth of rifle laying around when I'm not home.

Jeebus. $4,500. Is this your rifle?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Home invasions? That's why you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? It's not to protect your First Amendment rights from a government that runs remote-controlled aerial assassinations on anyone that it deems "inconvenient" to corporate goals?

If you honestly cite the Second Amendment as your right to own an assault rifle to protect your television and jewelry, then you don't understand what the Second Amendment is for.

No. The lack of understanding is on your part.
The Founders decided that an armed citizenry would be a deterrent to tyrannical government. They also recognized the fact that a man's home is his castle. His sanctuary. They wrote the Second to allow us to protect ourselves and the Fourth to prevent government from simply barging into our homes without cause other than it suspected us of wrongdoing.
However, they never envisioned the crime element and the willingness of people to take advantage of each other's weakness. On that note, it is apparent that the Founders accidentally gave us the right to protect ourselves from those with evil intent.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Home invasions? That's why you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? It's not to protect your First Amendment rights from a government that runs remote-controlled aerial assassinations on anyone that it deems "inconvenient" to corporate goals?

If you honestly cite the Second Amendment as your right to own an assault rifle to protect your television and jewelry, then you don't understand what the Second Amendment is for.

Too bad. We like the option and nobody is taking it away by the way!!!


You stick with your gay home defense system!!! Good luck!!!







kewl

Let me tell you something..IN the hands of the right person, those friggin things HURT!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

That being said,the shotgun sits beside the bed and the AR is in the safe.
The main reason being I dont have to lock the shotgun up when I leave the house. And I sure as hell ain't leaving forty five hundred worth of rifle laying around when I'm not home.

Jeebus. $4,500. Is this your rifle?

A little over 1200.00 for the optics,then add the rifle.
Then you add a good quality full floating foregripe,triggers,bolts maybe a new sling.
I stay away from the swiss army AR. My money went into optics and parts,not tripods and flash lights.

 

[Geaux4it]

Home invasions? That's why you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? It's not to protect your First Amendment rights from a government that runs remote-controlled aerial assassinations on anyone that it deems "inconvenient" to corporate goals?

If you honestly cite the Second Amendment as your right to own an assault rifle to protect your television and jewelry, then you don't understand what the Second Amendment is for.

I do. It's to stop anti's like you that want to take them, that's what

-Geaux

 

[WinterBorn]

That being said,the shotgun sits beside the bed and the AR is in the safe.
The main reason being I dont have to lock the shotgun up when I leave the house. And I sure as hell ain't leaving forty five hundred worth of rifle laying around when I'm not home.

Jeebus. $4,500. Is this your rifle?

A little over 1200.00 for the optics,then add the rifle.
Then you add a good quality full floating foregripe,triggers,bolts maybe a new sling.
I stay away from the swiss army AR. My money went into optics and parts,not tripods and flash lights.

Quality optics are not cheap, that is for sure. Good job.

 

[Spoonman]

Home invasions? That's why you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? It's not to protect your First Amendment rights from a government that runs remote-controlled aerial assassinations on anyone that it deems "inconvenient" to corporate goals?

If you honestly cite the Second Amendment as your right to own an assault rifle to protect your television and jewelry, then you don't understand what the Second Amendment is for.

the second amendment was about the right of an individual to own a firearm, unrestricted

 

[Spoonman]

Home invasions? That's why you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? It's not to protect your First Amendment rights from a government that runs remote-controlled aerial assassinations on anyone that it deems "inconvenient" to corporate goals?

If you honestly cite the Second Amendment as your right to own an assault rifle to protect your television and jewelry, then you don't understand what the Second Amendment is for.

No. The lack of understanding is on your part.
The Founders decided that an armed citizenry would be a deterrent to tyrannical government. They also recognized the fact that a man's home is his castle. His sanctuary. They wrote the Second to allow us to protect ourselves and the Fourth to prevent government from simply barging into our homes without cause other than it suspected us of wrongdoing.
However, they never envisioned the crime element and the willingness of people to take advantage of each other's weakness. On that note, it is apparent that the Founders accidentally gave us the right to protect ourselves from those with evil intent.

exactly and they were very specific abut their intent in the documentation they used to convince other states representatives to adopt the bill of rights.

 

[The T]

Home invasions? That's why you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? It's not to protect your First Amendment rights from a government that runs remote-controlled aerial assassinations on anyone that it deems "inconvenient" to corporate goals?

If you honestly cite the Second Amendment as your right to own an assault rifle to protect your television and jewelry, then you don't understand what the Second Amendment is for.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ~Jefferson 1824

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. ~Patrick Henry

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. ~Roger Sherman 1790​

 

[The T]

Home invasions? That's why you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? It's not to protect your First Amendment rights from a government that runs remote-controlled aerial assassinations on anyone that it deems "inconvenient" to corporate goals?

If you honestly cite the Second Amendment as your right to own an assault rifle to protect your television and jewelry, then you don't understand what the Second Amendment is for.

the second amendment was about the right of an individual to own a firearm, unrestricted

Nor did they specify WHAT arms....and on purpose.

 

[Iceweasel]

A little over 1200.00 for the optics,then add the rifle.
Then you add a good quality full floating foregripe,triggers,bolts maybe a new sling.
I stay away from the swiss army AR. My money went into optics and parts,not tripods and flash lights.

I have flippup Yankee Hill sights and a eotech red dot 512 (I think). Quad rails and rubber covers and a flashlight, but not an expensive one. I may be in the dark after the first shot so it's gotta count.

 

[Spoonman]

Home invasions? That's why you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? It's not to protect your First Amendment rights from a government that runs remote-controlled aerial assassinations on anyone that it deems "inconvenient" to corporate goals?

If you honestly cite the Second Amendment as your right to own an assault rifle to protect your television and jewelry, then you don't understand what the Second Amendment is for.

the second amendment was about the right of an individual to own a firearm, unrestricted

Nor did they specify WHAT arms....and on purpose.

the same founding fathers who ratified the bill of rights including the 2nd amendment had contracted a Philadelphia inventor to produce a rapid fire rifle that used a large capacity magazine and was capable of firing at the same rates as a modern day AR-15. They didn't proceed with the order only because of cost. they were fully aware of what the future of weapons were a decade before they wrote the 2nd amendment

 

[The T]

the second amendment was about the right of an individual to own a firearm, unrestricted

Nor did they specify WHAT arms....and on purpose.

the same founding fathers who ratified the bill of rights including the 2nd amendment had contracted a Philadelphia inventor to produce a rapid fire rifle that used a large capacity magazine and was capable of firing at the same rates as a modern day AR-15. They didn't proceed with the order only because of cost. they were fully aware of what the future of weapons were a decade before they wrote the 2nd amendment

Indeed...and even Jefferson addressed this...

A standing army has always been used by despots to enforce their rule and to keep their people under subjection. Its existence was therefore considered a great threat to peace and stability in a republic and a danger to the rights of the nation. Since every aspect of government was designed to prevent the rise of tyranny, strict limits and control over the military were considered absolutely necessary. It was essential that the military be subordinate to civilian control.

Now...what did he mean by this? Could it be that not only there be civilian control over the military...but also that the militia be likewise armed as the formal military? (And don't forget that the militia, are citizens not FORMALLY in the military until such need arises to protect not only their towns/villages/neighbors/themselves from intruders both foreign and domestic but to maintain tranquility, and liberty). It is the duty of EVERY citizen to protect liberty, even if the tyranny COMES FROM their own government?

 

[Spoonman]

Madison, who wrote the 2nd amendment went on to describe how the militia was a civilian militia with leaders of their own choosing and not to be controlled by the government or regular army. he also went on to describe what he saw the capabilities of the civilian militia were and how they could defeat the regular army if the government ever took arms against the people. of course the government trying to gain supreme power over the people would try to disarm the public. pin head liberal gun grabbers are too stupid to see this and attempt to aid them in their cause to make people submissive to the government.

 

[The T]

Madison, who wrote the 2nd amendment went on to describe how the militia was a civilian militia with leaders of their own choosing and not to be controlled by the government or regular army. he also went on to describe what he saw the capabilities of the civilian militia were and how they could defeat the regular army if the government ever took arms against the people. of course the government trying to gain supreme power over the people would try to disarm the public. pin head liberal gun grabbers are too stupid to see this and attempt to aid them in their cause to make people submissive to the government.

Yep...

To Further:

FEDERALIST No. 29 (HAMILTON)

 

[bucs90]

99.9% of all civilian uses of a gun for self defense are 2 shots or less. Almost always with a handgun.

The right wing rednecks have watched "Red Dawn" one too many times.

And, they're convinced that a communist president is gonna turn the US military against them and somehow, with their trusty AR15 and NO TRAINING, they'll fight off the most powerful military the world has ever known.

 

[bucs90]

Madison, who wrote the 2nd amendment went on to describe how the militia was a civilian militia with leaders of their own choosing and not to be controlled by the government or regular army. he also went on to describe what he saw the capabilities of the civilian militia were and how they could defeat the regular army if the government ever took arms against the people. of course the government trying to gain supreme power over the people would try to disarm the public. pin head liberal gun grabbers are too stupid to see this and attempt to aid them in their cause to make people submissive to the government.

That was back in the 1700's, when the "militia" and military both carried basically the same weapons: Muskets. And back when common citizens hunted and farmed and had to live rugged lives to survive, so really, aside from learning to march and salute, there wasn't a huge difference in "militia" and military.

TODAY?

The military is full of outstanding athletes, with world class weaponry, full time training, technology that 1980's movies could only dream of, tanks, drones, warships, etc, etc.

And the "militia" of right wing rednecks? Made up of 300 pound fatties on roto-scooters roving around Wal-Mart buying pork rinds, drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon on the recliner watching NASCAR, armed with an AR15 they bought with their tax return but have never been formally trained with?

YEAH.....I don't think the militia would win that one. Hell, there are 1,000,000 cops in America. I doubt "militia" could defeat them, much less the 3,000,000 man military.